The entire ecosystem of reactions and streams is completely alien to me. I just don't really understand the value that they add to anything other than someone with a face... having a face? This...
The entire ecosystem of reactions and streams is completely alien to me. I just don't really understand the value that they add to anything other than someone with a face... having a face?
This stuff has been prevelant throughout the entire time I've been on the Internet mind. There were whole 'wars' between 9GAG & Reddit in the 2010s for example and the watermarks being everywhere on memes and the such is just endlessly funny from that.
There's so much 'free' content online that this was always bound to be an issue. But it's good to see actual creative types being able to fight back against clowns who just hijack their stuff with a pretty face.
Unfortunately the average person simply doesn't care. Many of my friends who I'd consider to be intelligent and internet savvy have 0 issues sharing stolen videos on tik tok or Instagram. They...
Unfortunately the average person simply doesn't care. Many of my friends who I'd consider to be intelligent and internet savvy have 0 issues sharing stolen videos on tik tok or Instagram. They spend hours watching bullshit "react" content. And it's only getting worse as the years go on
I don't really get the reaction stuff, who are these people that they're famous? I don't care about famous people generally as it is, do they expect that their ten views and hour will be anything...
I don't really get the reaction stuff, who are these people that they're famous? I don't care about famous people generally as it is, do they expect that their ten views and hour will be anything but a data point to these people?
As a reaction video enjoyer (from major channels that follow policies about how much they show and do actively react, discuss, etc.) It hits the part of my brain that likes to see a friend react...
As a reaction video enjoyer (from major channels that follow policies about how much they show and do actively react, discuss, etc.) It hits the part of my brain that likes to see a friend react to a show I liked. You know the stereotype where you just watch the other person to see if they get the jokes.
That said, it's very different than just outright video theft and react. Probably the only thing I've cared to watch that way was New Zealand Taskmaster episodes because I was getting so many clips from the involved comedians' accounts. Even then it was truly a fan rip/post not a fake reaction.
That's the best way to describe it for me. I actually like watching a show or movie on my own. But a reaction video is fun just to see how someone else reacted to the same thing. I just watched...
It hits the part of my brain that likes to see a friend react to a show I liked.
That's the best way to describe it for me. I actually like watching a show or movie on my own. But a reaction video is fun just to see how someone else reacted to the same thing.
That said, it's very different than just outright video theft and react.
I just watched Leagle Eagle's video on the subject. I wasn't aware of how many channels just straight up repost other content with little to no reaction or commentary or editing.
Yeah the ones I watch are definitely professionals with a desire to follow fair use. Would they post the whole thing if allowed? Sure. But they're abiding by the rules. I also try not to fall into...
Yeah the ones I watch are definitely professionals with a desire to follow fair use. Would they post the whole thing if allowed? Sure. But they're abiding by the rules. I also try not to fall into the parasocial trap. I'm using them for their response to the videos they're using me for views. I don't have a relationship beyond that.
The thing that bothers me the most that a good set of the reaction video creators are literal millionaires with actual teams of people to manage stuff for them. And they still can't be arsed to...
The thing that bothers me the most that a good set of the reaction video creators are literal millionaires with actual teams of people to manage stuff for them.
And they still can't be arsed to properly credit whoever's content they are freebooting.
But they do react instantly if the target files a takedown request, by clipping away the offending bit.
The professional teams I watch do credit and tell people to watch on the original source, etc. If they post full reactions it's without the media at all (and usually via patreon) and they limit to...
The professional teams I watch do credit and tell people to watch on the original source, etc. If they post full reactions it's without the media at all (and usually via patreon) and they limit to ten minutes of the original footage for a TV show and usually 20 for a movie (ish, I don't pay that tight of attention)
But I'm not watching streaming reacts or twitch so that may just be the bias of what I've seen and engaged with.
It seems to currently be more prevalent among streamers, since, as mentioned in the video, they aren't always kept as VODs afterward to be scrutinized. But additionally, streaming platforms (minus...
I wasn't aware of how many channels just straight up repost other content with little to no reaction or commentary or editing.
It seems to currently be more prevalent among streamers, since, as mentioned in the video, they aren't always kept as VODs afterward to be scrutinized. But additionally, streaming platforms (minus YouTube) are a lot less active with copyright in general - which can be part of what fosters the attitude, along with the live aspect.
There has been an increasing amount of discussion as well though, as a lot of bigger "vapid" streamers like Hasan and XQC have been (rightfully) criticized for it.
I think this is probably one of the bits I lack, I don't really have that. If I send something to someone, then it's likely they'll enjoy it. But I don't get any personal edification from their...
As a reaction video enjoyer (from major channels that follow policies about how much they show and do actively react, discuss, etc.) It hits the part of my brain that likes to see a friend react to a show I liked. You know the stereotype where you just watch the other person to see if they get the jokes.
I think this is probably one of the bits I lack, I don't really have that. If I send something to someone, then it's likely they'll enjoy it. But I don't get any personal edification from their enjoyment. Who knows?
New Zealand Taskmaster
Is it still Lord Greg Davis? Because anything else is anathama.
I cannot explain why that's a thing that itches a particular part of my brain. I like other people enjoying things. People pleasing? Empathetic? Lack of boundaries? My educational background in...
I cannot explain why that's a thing that itches a particular part of my brain. I like other people enjoying things. People pleasing? Empathetic? Lack of boundaries? My educational background in counseling? Idk
Is it still Lord Greg Davis? Because anything else is anathama.
No but Aussie and Kiwi Taskmaster are hilarious. Their little assistants manage to almost live up to Alex Horne and the world seems to have adopted Paul from NZ as their precious.
The original is still best though. I just started season 16 since it's now actually available on YouTube!
Greg Davis is our lord and saviour. Also, he's a goddamn giant in person as well. The show does not suitably prepare you for his presence.
No but Aussie and Kiwi Taskmaster are hilarious. Their little assistants manage to almost live up to Alex Horne and the world seems to have adopted Paul from NZ as their precious.
The original is still best though. I just started season 16 since it's now actually available on YouTube!
Greg Davis is our lord and saviour. Also, he's a goddamn giant in person as well. The show does not suitably prepare you for his presence.
I also watch reaction videos sometimes, but man, in some of them the person is not even trying to react. Like, sometimes I watch a funny video and think "haha, I wonder what that streamer thought...
That said, it's very different than just outright video theft and react
I also watch reaction videos sometimes, but man, in some of them the person is not even trying to react. Like, sometimes I watch a funny video and think "haha, I wonder what that streamer thought of it". And then I open the reaction clip and it literally starts with the YouTuber starting the video and LEAVING THE ROOM to get food or go to the toilet or something. Like dude, wtf, you couldn't have done that before starting the video? Do you think you're gonna lose all of your viewers if you leave the stream for two minutes without playing a random video?
In the video linked for this post, one of the creators that was included in discussion called it a "watch party" and I think that's a good way of viewing these, and highlights some flaws in the...
In the video linked for this post, one of the creators that was included in discussion called it a "watch party" and I think that's a good way of viewing these, and highlights some flaws in the current social media systems. There's clearly a demand for people to want to be able to watch things with others, and in particular the parasocial relationships people form with streamers or just certain reaction "creators" if you can call them that (I'm referring to non-live stream sources as well). It'd kinda be like watching things with friends, except these people are more like faux friends but if you consistently watch them then it's still different than if you just watched with random people.
If you're a twitch streamer for example, in order to watch a youtube video together with your audience in a way that isn't just freebooting or possibly exploiting grey areas around fair use, you'd need to share a link to the youtube video in the chat and get everyone to click on it and start the video at the same time to achieve a similar experience as it is when they just play it on stream.
Basically there's a demand for a way to watch this content together live and more rapid pace, but there's no technical solution being provided to accomplish this. (There's also people who aren't just doing it live but are making Youtube videos or TikTok videos and the same ideas still apply, it's less a watch party and still more a parasocial faux friendship element keeping it going) That doesn't justify freebooting, but it might help better explain why it happens. I think the large platforms could probably do a better job of providing some technical solutions to this. For example on Twitch, if there was some kind of Youtube embed integration, perhaps Twitch partners (meaning not just random Twitch streamers but people who have gone through a process to become more legitimized by Twitch) could queue up Youtube video links and the embed gets placed next to the streamer's face within the Twitch site. Basically the Twitch streamer would control when each video gets played. The embed would sorta fix this issue because Youtube creators have the ability to approve of embeds or not.
Now I have no clue if that's technically even possible to code or that it would even work, I'm just trying to illustrate how this problem could possibly be resolved by technical solutions (if such are possible). One of the problems here of course is that there will be ads on those videos for some, and not for others, so it throws off the timing that doesn't happen when the Twitch streamer freeboots. I don't watch these react streamers but I assume most of them either use an adblocker or pay for Youtube premium to skip ads as it's a small price to pay to then be able to stream to an audience of thousands and none of them have to see the ads. If they're not doing this, then it's simple, everyone was already watching ads that the Twitch streamer was playing on stream, so they just watch the ads in the embeds. However if they were doing this, then maybe they could do something where the Twitch streamer pays a certain amount of money to make each link they queue up ad-free for their whole audience (assuming Twitch streamer is making money off this, and ads might be a deterrent to viewers, providing the pricing is rational they could be incentivized to pay this ad-free option, which would go to the creators of the videos they are reacting to). This would of course require some integrations between different platforms like Youtube, Twitch, TikTok etc. but if these technical solutions are even possible, then they should have some responsibility in mitigating the widespread copyright infringement by implementing these types of solutions.
It's also partly an issue of competition, legally there's not enough pressure on these platforms to implement these kinds of solutions, and surely they aren't simple to achieve and would cost money to implement. There's already a huge barrier to entry to making something that competes with these platforms, but a platform that tries to achieve a copyright friendly implementation doesn't get any advantages in competition because the legal system isn't applying any pressure onto the current platforms.
It's also sort of the fault of the flawed copyright system. I don't know what the ideal solution to it is because there's not enough discussion on solutions, but something like a 30 year copyright length might be reasonable in my view, rather than the current length which is like 9304834908 years (or something like lifetime of author +70 years). There might be more pressure to better define terms of fair use if copyright legislation wasn't insane. The DMCA in particular is an abomination. I am not a big fan of many aspects of copyright, but I do see the problem with react content freebooting videos and I don't think it should be legal but at the same time I'm not exactly going to fight for fair use to be weakened as long as the rest of the system is so broken.
It's not really a technical problem - the tech is there. An example of a legal version of this is the offical Twitch Watches X. Twitch basically licenses shows and streams them, and you can watch...
Basically there's a demand for a way to watch this content together live and more rapid pace, but there's no technical solution being provided to accomplish this.
It's not really a technical problem - the tech is there. An example of a legal version of this is the offical Twitch Watches X. Twitch basically licenses shows and streams them, and you can watch them "with" everyone else in the chat. I know they did the Pokemon Movies and a lot of YuGiOh (good choices - nostalgia + "so bad it's good" aspects).
Yeah that's licensing like one set of IP with one owner, and it's very specific and recognizable IP. That's not really feasible to accomplish on a more widespread scale if you're viewing content...
Yeah that's licensing like one set of IP with one owner, and it's very specific and recognizable IP. That's not really feasible to accomplish on a more widespread scale if you're viewing content prolifically. Just like a lot of other aspects of copyright law aren't suitable or viable at scale so there were solutions created on top of that. Youtube's Content ID is an example, if they were all still relying on DMCA takedowns to manage it all the system probably wouldn't even work, which likely created the incentive to make something else.
Those are also done infrequently seemingly. Why don't they do it for everything and just shitcan all the reaction streamers then? Because they recognize trying to license everything to keep streams going all the time would be a nightmare.
Edit: I think I've found a way to explain this a little better.
For live streaming, these platforms have created a technical solution to a demand, perhaps inadvertently for this specific case. That demand is letting multiple people watch many things all together at once, fully synchronized with a chat etc. and even a "tour guide" in some cases where the streamer wants to add commentary, or for some it's just a visualization of a person watching with them. The problem is that their technical solution for this demand does not create a technical solution for licensing the content that is getting displayed. Someone who is starting out as a fairly new streamer doesn't have the capability of manually seeking out permission or licensing vast amounts of content that they would intend to display with this new technical solution that Twitch or anyone else is offering. Since there happens to be a grey area with fair use and reaction content, they get a pass on the licensing to some extent through fair use (though most of them haven't been legally tested so as this topic and others have speculated, many of these people aren't meeting the fair use criteria).
The demand for viewing the content this way is valid and not even intending to infringe copyright, nor does it only exist because it infringes copyright. The streamer is making tons of money, so clearly there's money flowing in to support it. It just lacks a way to facilitate properly licensing the content and directing some of that money towards those who made the content that people are watching.
So, what you're saying is there's a dissoance of old where we used to have that "Hey man, did you see <x> last night?!" that we had as kids in the 90s, and what we have now? Maybe you're on to...
So, what you're saying is there's a dissoance of old where we used to have that "Hey man, did you see <x> last night?!" that we had as kids in the 90s, and what we have now? Maybe you're on to something there?
I think it's the persona that I don't really give that much of a shit about. CPGrey for example is brilliant, because it's insightful, smart and usually absurdist stuff that his mind has taken him down one day (I can relate with ADHD in a big way). Where as SniperWolf or whatever... it's just her face shoving her SEOified-opinion down your throat about really inane things?
I always see those kinds of things where peoples lives are so mundane that they make a really big deal out of having an opinion about every little thing. Rather than specialising in knowledge and not letting others bother you? There's a bit on the video where it cuts to her talking about indicators on a car. I just sat there with a "Good lord, how banal must that channel be?" despite it having an insane following.
It just leaves me really perplexed.
It's also partly an issue of competition, legally there's not enough pressure on these platforms to implement these kinds of solutions, and surely they aren't simple to achieve and would cost money to implement.
Wonder if we'll see that the EU / UK start to become more technologically grumpy about US Tech Platforms and their excessiveness?
Yeah I do think its something along those lines, it's just an evolution of social media and social interaction (if you can even call it that). I didn't really understand it at first either, but...
Exemplary
So, what you're saying is there's a dissoance of old where we used to have that "Hey man, did you see <x> last night?!" that we had as kids in the 90s, and what we have now? Maybe you're on to something there?
Yeah I do think its something along those lines, it's just an evolution of social media and social interaction (if you can even call it that). I didn't really understand it at first either, but framing it this way makes the most sense to me. That's why I also view it as partly a technical deficiency of the platforms, because there might be some streams I watch, though not nearly to the extent other people are watching these people, I don't watch reaction content because I don't care for it, but I do see the value to some extent in being able to interact with others while viewing the content. On the streams I do watch on occasion, I use the chat sometimes. I also used to post on Reddit all the time and now I post on tildes, a lot of this is partly just having some content and then people reacting to it and discussing it. It just happens I'm older and prefer more long-form content and discussion so this format works fine for me, but it's not for everyone.
You might say you can just post a comment on the Youtube video, but a lot of content is ephemeral. It's another reason why I have problems with copyright. In some cases the content is relevant because other people are talking about it, and when they stop talking about it, it becomes less relevant. It's like schrodinger's relevancy of content. A lot of videos I watched in the past, many people haven't seen today and they're not any worse off for it. A lot of videos peak once, and then they're mostly done. They might get posted on reddit, a bunch of people watch and comment etc., and then it might die after that. It's not exactly live, you get to do it at your own pace sort of.
These reaction videos sort of bring back some of the ephemeral elements of that content, because posting a comment on a youtube video that was uploaded 4 years ago isn't going to net you much engagement. There's nothing to bring people together at a specific time to do it.
That leads to the parasocial part.
I think it's the persona that I don't really give that much of a shit about. CPGrey for example is brilliant, because it's insightful, smart and usually absurdist stuff that his mind has taken him down one day (I can relate with ADHD in a big way). Where as SniperWolf or whatever... it's just her face shoving her SEOified-opinion down your throat about really inane things?
I view these people as sort of "curators" if you will. It might be too generous a term, but it gets the point across. They're curating the things that bring all those people together at once to have these ephemeral experiences, and apparently they're doing a good enough job to get people to keep coming back. You could say, of course its easy to do that when you can pick all the best content that already exists and had proven success and piggyback off it without having to pay anything to do it, but seemingly for whatever reason people are drawn to the same person for each experience, so I guess who knows what the true reason is.
Really it's not substantially different than some other things people do to kill time. Some people will turn on a TV show they've seen 50 times already and let it play mostly in the background, or used to be people would just turn on the TV and channel surf to random shit that could entertain them. There's shows like Maury or Jerry Springer or whatever other stuff people watch that I can't find any value in, so I guess why would it be any different in more modern ways. Also consider this, a lot of sitcoms back in the day put in laugh tracks, and while they're not necessary to make an enjoyable sitcom, if you've ever watched one where it doesn't bother you and you can just watch the show and enjoy it even with a laugh track, it almost has a feeling like you're watching it with other people or not alone.
I just think that the social platforms don't have the right incentives to provide solutions to the problem, but I think with the right technical solutions it could still exist. I don't think it only exists because they're piggybacking off others work for free, I think it does provide some additional value to the people watching it that doesn't exist from the original sources, but these platforms need to find a technical solution to fulfill that demand rather than letting the streamers just piggyback off others for free.
I like your take on this. Your explanation puts some puzzle pieces together that I was missing to explain my own behavior when engaging with this content. It's good I think to frame it as not good...
I like your take on this. Your explanation puts some puzzle pieces together that I was missing to explain my own behavior when engaging with this content. It's good I think to frame it as not good or bad, but an evolution of social norms. This extremely powerful Internet was dropped on us and here we are decades later still trying to figure out how it fits into our lives in a healthy way. I don't think we are there yet by any means, but I'm hopeful after seeing some of the thoughtful discussions here. 🤞
there are a few, but it's not something a huge tech company is actively pursuing. It's more of a logistics issue. There will inevitably be some shared viewing among families, but for the most part...
but there's no technical solution being provided to accomplish this.
there are a few, but it's not something a huge tech company is actively pursuing. It's more of a logistics issue. There will inevitably be some shared viewing among families, but for the most part companies don't like it, because it's not something they can track. One of the big limitations compared to physical venues, or cable where you can at least get a rough idea of a household and take into account multiple viewer.
I would like to add to this and mention that it's also a logistics issue in terms of getting people together to watch something at the same time and pretty much impossible to do so consistently -...
I would like to add to this and mention that it's also a logistics issue in terms of getting people together to watch something at the same time and pretty much impossible to do so consistently - at least it has been in my experience. There is also simply so much content now and even with popular media, there's a chance nobody you know might be interested in watching it. So these reactions would be the only way to scratch the itch of getting the enjoyment from watching something you like with another person, as @DefinitelyNotAFae mentioned.
I definitely got more into it during the pandemic as well. But I also had my major social activities die during that time and never pick back up again so I don't have a lot of in-person...
I definitely got more into it during the pandemic as well. But I also had my major social activities die during that time and never pick back up again so I don't have a lot of in-person opportunities to watch these things with others.
The technical solution has to come from the platforms where the copyright infringement is flourishing. Essentially, the scale at which copyright infringement occurs is because of the scale of the...
The technical solution has to come from the platforms where the copyright infringement is flourishing. Essentially, the scale at which copyright infringement occurs is because of the scale of the platforms, and the only solution that's realistically going to be able to achieve comparable scale to that is by meeting demand while reducing copyright infringement through a technical solution on the very platform that the problem arises from.
I don't see it as a logistics issue necessarily, they would probably get more data if they had a proper technical solution than the data they get the way it operates now, or at the least the equivalent amount of data, depends on what perspective you look at it from.
For example, if Twitch streamers could embed auto-play youtube videos (or tiktok videos, mix and match these platforms where appropriate) and overlay their face all within the Twitch app or website, and control the sequencing of those auto-play embedded videos, Youtube and the people who made the videos on Youtube would now know their videos are being played and where, because it would be done using official means provided by Youtube and the creator of the video (provided that someone doesn't re-upload the video onto Youtube with another account). Twitch would also gain more information by knowing what videos are being played, even though I'm not sure how valuable that information would be to them.
Overall I'm not saying that's an incentive for either of them to work on such a feature or support such a feature, I'm just saying I don't think such a solution would reduce their tracking data. I think there's many other reasons why they might not want to have such integrations, like Youtube could turn that type of feature into a competitive advantage if it was on their own livestreaming service and they blocked Twitch from being able to do it. The problem is that without legal pressure to stop the current form of reacting, there's no incentive to create a more complex system to respect the copyright of others' content.
I'm only talking about live because it's easier to pick one and use that, but obviously there's other solutions to ones where people are uploading videos of reaction content that isn't respectful of copyrights or fair use.
I agree the copyright systems are a huge barrier. But despite that, there are "easy" technical solutions. But all of these have obvious logistical issues in executing. There can be better...
I don't see it as a logistics issue necessarily, they would probably get more data if they had a proper technical solution than the data they get the way it operates now
I agree the copyright systems are a huge barrier. But despite that, there are "easy" technical solutions.
But all of these have obvious logistical issues in executing. There can be better technical solutions if they didn't have to work around DMCA, but such logistics would still occur. your embedded solution still requires some financial incentive to get off the ground, and monetization factors to iron out between involved parties even if everyone did play ball. But those factors would take much longer to work on than any technical implementation.
I'm just saying I don't think such a solution would reduce their tracking data
I mostly wanted to emphasize that they lack the tracking data to properly implement this. Ultimately, it is hard enough as is to convince ad networks they they are getting organic views from engaged viewers, and this will only get harder as more and more AI-generated content floods the internet. So trust is eroding, and fast. Companies are also being hardballed for their past 2 decades of aggressive tracking so it's a political minefield to suggest adding even more telemetry to get around this.
They more than burned their goodwill here, so to speak. Companies are always lawsuit averse, but this is happening a lot more now than ever before.
Those who watch reaction videos are in a way seeking validation. They like to see the things they enjoy, also being liked and appreciated by other people. At best it makes people feel more...
Those who watch reaction videos are in a way seeking validation. They like to see the things they enjoy, also being liked and appreciated by other people. At best it makes people feel more connected and at worse it's about feeling more relevant and important. So like most things on Social Media, it's about scratching the ego and appealing to vanity, which becomes an engine that fuels the genre's growth.
It's simply a matter of community. The Third Place has declined in part because people will seek that form of third place through some sort of online community. Be it a forum, imageboard, or a...
It's simply a matter of community. The Third Place has declined in part because people will seek that form of third place through some sort of online community. Be it a forum, imageboard, or a streaming personality. It may seem fleeting or superfluous for someone with physical connections to rely on, but that simply seems to be enough for a modern person. It's helpful that it becomes easy to disengage at least.
Fwiw, there is more obvious allure for certain personalities outside of being funny. Some are experts (speedrunners or pro players) and you watch someone who performs at a level you can't hope to reach. Some work in industry and their commentary can reveal some nuggests of wisdom you won't find among most f the internet. Some may have fluffier stream content but are bound to compliment it with a more thorough retrospective later on.
also the other obvious caveat from the "proper" channels is advertisement. If you are a growing channel, for instance, and some million+ subscriber youtuber wants to react to your content: well, that just works out for both sides of the equation. big youtuber gets content, smaller youtuber gets more people piped to their content. Maybe even people not subscribed to either of them simply because the algorithm will favor the larger youtuber's content in feeds.
I think enjoying watching things with other people, and viewing other people's reactions, is a very innate human element that comes from the eons of evolution that promoted social behavior in our...
I think enjoying watching things with other people, and viewing other people's reactions, is a very innate human element that comes from the eons of evolution that promoted social behavior in our ancestors. It's difficult to really explain, but have you never enjoyed watching something with friends, even if you're not saying all that much during it?
Now, you can get into whether or not streamers count as "friends" or if that counts as "watching together", but regardless it tickles that part of the brain, which is why it's a popular form of content.
Freebooting content has always gotten under my skin (part of the reason why I worked so hard to kill it on /r/videos.) It seems like people are finally starting to get sick of it. The audacity for...
Freebooting content has always gotten under my skin (part of the reason why I worked so hard to kill it on /r/videos.) It seems like people are finally starting to get sick of it.
The audacity for any "creator" to defend this is wild to me.
“You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) watch my content if I’m not earning anything for it” huh. Now YouTubers want to play the publisher’s game. I say we should abolish copyright law and most (if not...
“You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) watch my content if I’m not earning anything for it” huh. Now YouTubers want to play the publisher’s game.
I say we should abolish copyright law and most (if not all) content should be free (libre).
Speaking as a starving artist of sorts, I never anticipate my work being a source of income, and still make it. This myth that the only useful motivator is profit seems at odds with the concept of...
Speaking as a starving artist of sorts, I never anticipate my work being a source of income, and still make it. This myth that the only useful motivator is profit seems at odds with the concept of art itself, honestly.
It's a pretty concept, but most of the creators I watch would not be able to make the content they make without being able to support themselves through their work. People like Tom Scott, Lemmino,...
It's a pretty concept, but most of the creators I watch would not be able to make the content they make without being able to support themselves through their work.
People like Tom Scott, Lemmino, Mandalore, Wendover, etc spend days upon days working on creating content and deserve to profit off of it.
They should all just do it for fun because "art should be free"? The only way I see that system working for most people is in a economic system where you aren't required to work to live, which I support but is definitely not going to be the reality for a long time.
I mean, yes? Copyright is demanding that the entire world bend over and refuse to incorporate information into their own art, it demands that people do not share things which are, primarily, made...
I mean, yes? Copyright is demanding that the entire world bend over and refuse to incorporate information into their own art, it demands that people do not share things which are, primarily, made for the sake of being shared, even if the current context demands that they find a way to pay for their necessities with them. That is absurd. In what way does my or your or anyone's desire for edutainment or any other "content" justify such overreach? It's one thing to argue that private ownership of physical things is valid, because they exist as spatial entities which inherently can only occupy one place, but to say that the words or images someone creates must be monopolized by force feels entirely baseless except as a way to cope with the larger issues in our society. I'd rather we fix those issues than to create more injustice as a bandaid, especially if that bandaid means privatizing concepts.
I believe we live in fundamentally different worlds and aren't going to be able to come to any sort of agreement on this. I appreciate your perspective but I can't find any common ground with a...
I believe we live in fundamentally different worlds and aren't going to be able to come to any sort of agreement on this. I appreciate your perspective but I can't find any common ground with a realistic approach to solving this problem in our world today.
Until we live in a post scarcity society that provides all needs and wants without effort, I will continue to support people's right to the sweat of their brow when it comes to content creation. Especially when the alternative is "creators" like xQc stealing your content to make himself rich off of other people's hard work with no effort of his own.
Sure, I kind of figured as much. I feel like this conflation of demanding compensation for work done without a guarantee of pay (which itself feels like basic entitlement, but is obviously not...
Sure, I kind of figured as much.
I feel like this conflation of demanding compensation for work done without a guarantee of pay (which itself feels like basic entitlement, but is obviously not rooted in anything untoward) with a system most geared toward further enrichment of incumbent parties rather than the actual artists is dangerous. That it, in a way, is a long term method of preventing that stage, at which you've said you'd happily discard intellectual property, from coming to be.
As it stands, sure, my art is copyrighted, but if (somehow) a major publisher broke into my home or hacked my backup server and "stole" my art, I wouldn't be able to realistically challenge them, even if I had receipts to demonstrate the "theft" beyond doubt. I just couldn't afford it. On the other hand, the Tolkien estate still insists they own words like orc and hobbit, a hundred years after a dead man coined the terms, and it seems every year a music publisher is able to establish precedent which expands the label of "infringement" even further beyond a scope that any musicians or music scholars recognize as valid.
With the example you give, it sounds like you're more frustrated with the cost of ensuring copyright in the current system, not with copyright itself. I'll give an example of my own that's more...
With the example you give, it sounds like you're more frustrated with the cost of ensuring copyright in the current system, not with copyright itself. I'll give an example of my own that's more relevant to the original topic. You spend 1000 hours creating a Youtube video, you upload it to Youtube. Immediately 50 other channels steal it and upload it to their own channels and get many more views, subscribers, and comments. You have the option (for free) to copyright strike them via Youtube's system to either remove their videos or claim the lost revenue from them, do you take it?
Sure, but it was just an example of the perverse outcomes justified by something designed "for artists". I'm trying to bridge the difference in fundamental worldview rather than just repeat my...
Sure, but it was just an example of the perverse outcomes justified by something designed "for artists". I'm trying to bridge the difference in fundamental worldview rather than just repeat my opinion at you.
I can confidently say I would not make a YouTube video that I wouldn't be prepared to see taken and reuploaded ad infinitum. I'd rather it be cited, and if I need the money to live, I'll obviously click the "claim" button, but I promise I'd feel bad for it, and probably would "just" get a job.
With that perspective, I can assure you your view is wildly different than most content creators online, which is fine; but its important to remember that their opinion on the subject matters too,...
With that perspective, I can assure you your view is wildly different than most content creators online, which is fine; but its important to remember that their opinion on the subject matters too, because they're the ones being affected.
It's been interesting watching Adam Neely (music theory YouTuber and practicing musician) slowly become disillusioned with copyright in its entirety, after analyzing multiple lawsuits like...
it seems every year a music publisher is able to establish precedent which expands the label of "infringement" even further beyond a scope that any musicians or music scholars recognize as valid.
It's been interesting watching Adam Neely (music theory YouTuber and practicing musician) slowly become disillusioned with copyright in its entirety, after analyzing multiple lawsuits like that...and then getting YouTube strikes from the party he was defending, in one case. (The icing on the cake is they manually flagged a part of the video with the other song.)
Copyright is fundamentally incompatible with art, even without the broad expansion. It restricts creativity, all so capitalists can have more imaginary property to rent-seek with.
I will always be very academically minded on the subject: copyright is trash, but there should be laws against plagiarism.
You can and should expect that since most people aren't lucky enough to earn a living that way. It's just realistic. Reality is also that someone is getting paid here. Why shouldn't it be the...
You can and should expect that since most people aren't lucky enough to earn a living that way. It's just realistic.
Reality is also that someone is getting paid here. Why shouldn't it be the original creator?
You can both support the creators here (who presumably are incentivized at least partly by the potential earnings) while also argue that art should be free and should be done for the sake of the art itself. But if YouTube is filled with ads, there are some people in the chain more deserving of compensation than others. Why would you defend the big ones exploiting others, smaller creators, seeing as you also don't like things like Tolkien estate insisting they own the concept of an orc? Both can be bad, they aren't at odds with each other.
I'm not defending big channels exploiting smaller ones. I'm arguing against a dangerous legal fiction that's used as a snare to entrap us. The more that artists feel entitled to compensation, the...
I'm not defending big channels exploiting smaller ones. I'm arguing against a dangerous legal fiction that's used as a snare to entrap us. The more that artists feel entitled to compensation, the harder it gets to fight against a system that's as much a monstrous parasite on our culture as it is an agent determining people's worldviews. This is a ratcheting mechanism, and the only way out is to disregard the local context for the larger goal.
It's not clear to me why artists shouldn't feel entitled to compensation? Is creative work not deserving of compensation same as with any other type of work?
It's not clear to me why artists shouldn't feel entitled to compensation? Is creative work not deserving of compensation same as with any other type of work?
The thing that entitles most workers to compensation is an agreement to be paid. If someone wants to pay an artist for their art, or to commission them to make art, then of course they're...
The thing that entitles most workers to compensation is an agreement to be paid. If someone wants to pay an artist for their art, or to commission them to make art, then of course they're deserving. But labor does not generate market value, it just substantiates it.
It's totally reasonable for an artist to want compensation, but copyright is not an ethical pathway to that. As we conceive of it, intellectual property exists to enrich and cement mass media companies as the sole arbiters of reality, to capture creative productivity for their profits, and to undermine grassroots social movements. Sure, it's nice that some artists get to subsist off making art and selling their copyright to those companies, but very few of them get any creative control, and the number of independent artists who survive off of it is very small, and usually the least pro-copyright cohort of these groups. The power of these systems is in their aggregate, and why would Disney support legislation that enabled anyone else to live to compete? So it's a tool that's framed as for the artist when all it seems to do is silence that which isn't four-quadrant popular, or at least doesn't have an individual wealthy patron.
I guess I have to say that I'm biased because I'm a full-time artist who makes a living out of licensing my art out, and I am lucky to have creative control in many of my projects. I've also...
I guess I have to say that I'm biased because I'm a full-time artist who makes a living out of licensing my art out, and I am lucky to have creative control in many of my projects. I've also benefited from copyright law protection, as an independent artist in a third-world country who has successfully gone after infringing brands in a first-world country. (I actually just settled another case today.) I just wanted to give the perspective of someone who's directly affected by this.
The existing copyright system is definitely problematic, but calling for its outright abolishment is just as extreme as calling for the outright abolishment of generative AI. I would say I'm neither pro-copyright nor anti-AI, but pro-artists and pro-laborers in general.
Just as with AI, copyright's problem lies in its abuse by corporations. I would support, for example, drastically reducing copyright protection of corporate-owned IP. And drastically reducing copyright protection after the original creator's death (I think it should only go as far as safeguarding the welfare of the creator's young dependents if any). I also don't see any reason why corporations should be allowed to continue owning the copyright to something even after the original creator's death. Amending copyright in ways like this would address the issue of corporate greed while still protecting artists, which is supposed to be the whole point.
Again. Everyone is directly affected by this. It shapes culture and impacts how we raise children. I understand economic realities, and don't hold any ire for you or anybody who survives on wages...
Again. Everyone is directly affected by this. It shapes culture and impacts how we raise children.
I understand economic realities, and don't hold any ire for you or anybody who survives on wages built upon copyright. In particular, it's great to hear that you've had success defending your own claims, I'm not gonna hate on anybody trying to get by in this messy system.
However, you must understand that your perspective is one that is necessarily supportive of the status quo for that reason. This isn't to imply anything about your quality of character or moral outlook, it's more that...of course you do, someone who doesn't see the validity of these things probably won't end up in such a field. And of course, your perspective is valid and important and I'm glad we're talking. But your staked claim is taking the rights of others' away, in the same sense that someone else cannot sit in your seat without you moving first.
Calling for abolishment of IP is inherently less extreme than banning generative models. It comes down to the fact that one is a legal fiction, and the other is an algorithm. One exists exclusively as legislation, that has no fundamental basis in human rights, the other is an outgrowth of humans trying to understand ourselves and the world around us that can be replicated in a practical instant by anyone with a modern computer and an internet connection. One would cease to exist the instant that the state monopoly on violence fell, and banning the other would require a massive shift in law enforcement which would inevitably infringe on everyone's civil rights, in order to preserve the paychecks of a slim minority of workers.
We tolerate the injustices of homelessness and seatlessness (to loop back to my earlier analogy) because there are physical, actual things that make it hard. Sure, we could house and seat everyone tomorrow if Bill Gates flashed enough cash, but that foundation is why we as humanity are willing to put up with it. But now we want to treat conceptual space as real estate too? Where is the justice in that?
I'm not understanding how enforcing my copyrights "takes rights away from others"? If that's what you meant. Preventing people from accessing my art (such as putting it behind a paywall) is not...
I'm not understanding how enforcing my copyrights "takes rights away from others"? If that's what you meant. Preventing people from accessing my art (such as putting it behind a paywall) is not the same as, for example, preventing access to medicine/water/electricity. If someone else makes a piece of art I don't see how it's a part of my human rights to be able to benefit from their work without their consent. I didn't work for it and I'm free to just make my own.
(Btw I appreciate you taking the time to make your tone as clear as possible on this!)
I take issue with this reconnoitering of "rights" that's happened in the last few decades. The idea is founded on natural rights, those which can only be guaranteed against via force or coercion,...
I take issue with this reconnoitering of "rights" that's happened in the last few decades. The idea is founded on natural rights, those which can only be guaranteed against via force or coercion, rather than things that people generally deserve.1 People have a right to expression and communication. Claiming you're the only one who can sell a piece of art is one thing, but as we all know, copyright pertains to noncommercial distribution, derivative works, and even replication for personal use. Even that initial, relatively reasonable demand, implies that there's no practical labor or materials cost in actual counterfeiting, but I'm not aware of any copyright system that doesn't extend into at least preventing derivation. Just that is unambiguous restriction on speech.
1: This is not an argument against "the right to healthcare", or whatever, as a concept, it's mostly a semantic issue.
Fair use already allows for those things. It can still be improved, of course, for ex. I don't agree that Anne Rice should have been able to sue people over fanfiction 😂 but yeah so far I remain...
Fair use already allows for those things. It can still be improved, of course, for ex. I don't agree that Anne Rice should have been able to sue people over fanfiction 😂 but yeah so far I remain unconvinced that total abolishment is what's needed rather than amendments like I've suggested, and the strengthening of initiatives such as Creative Commons. I'd be happy to have copyrights abolished under utopian conditions though, like in a post-scarcity civilization where there's a sustainable abundance of goods that are truly accessible to everyone. I don't see the abolishment of copyright as something that would help lead towards that utopian future, either; I think it makes more sense (and has less "collateral damage") to getjregulation that more directly and precisely targets corporate greed (antitrust laws, nerfing corporate IP ownership).
I don't think that your vision of copyright would be anywhere near as caustic as the deal we have today, but at that point, we may as well abandon the term. The narrow definition of fair use is...
I don't think that your vision of copyright would be anywhere near as caustic as the deal we have today, but at that point, we may as well abandon the term. The narrow definition of fair use is definitely the culturally accepted one, thanks to the last century of jurisprudence, and it's been a very long time since it mainly protected against counterfeiting.
I feel comfortable saying we understand each other, and I'm glad we could have this back and forth. Let me know if I've been unclear or otherwise.
I'm not particularly attached to the term; and am also open to alternative systems for supporting artists, such as the "artistic freedom voucher". Yes, thank you for this discussion!
I'm not particularly attached to the term; and am also open to alternative systems for supporting artists, such as the "artistic freedom voucher".
Do we need more content? More pointedly, must it be a goal of public policy to maximize the rate of content creation? There are already multiple lifetimes of videos—not to mention the music,...
Do we need more content? More pointedly, must it be a goal of public policy to maximize the rate of content creation? There are already multiple lifetimes of videos—not to mention the music, comics, and books. Multiple lifetimes that more than one data hoarder has in their respective home data centers.
I'm sorry but I don't think I could ever understand the idea of "isn't there enough content?" Not everyone is interested in everything. Most people like niches of content and those aren't...
I'm sorry but I don't think I could ever understand the idea of "isn't there enough content?"
Not everyone is interested in everything. Most people like niches of content and those aren't inexhaustible, for some niches it's a pretty shallow well to draw from.
If I wanted to just sit down and autoplay tik tok compilations for the rest of my life maybe I'd agree with you. But I actually have only a few things that really interest me in terms of content, and saying "ok that's enough, we don't need anymore we're all good" seems really goofy to me.
Should they stop making new video games because not everyone has played through the 10,000,000 flash games available online?
I feel like you're getting out of scope of the original point here. The whole point of this post was condemning people who freeboot videos online, not arguing the philosophy of the copyright...
I feel like you're getting out of scope of the original point here. The whole point of this post was condemning people who freeboot videos online, not arguing the philosophy of the copyright system to it's every flaw.
I'm a little torn as this is obviously an incredibly nuanced topic, but I couldn't help but listen to them talking about how the copyright strike system "can't easily be abused" and think back to...
I'm a little torn as this is obviously an incredibly nuanced topic, but I couldn't help but listen to them talking about how the copyright strike system "can't easily be abused" and think back to the hundreds of examples that prove otherwise that I've listened to well respected YouTubers rant about for years.
That gets under my skin in a "are we the baddies?" sorta way that makes me question a lot here.
There was quite a bit of controversy over reactions to LEMMINO's documentary on the Kennedy assassination, especially xQc's reaction (one of the largest streamers, with a particularly poor effort...
There was quite a bit of controversy over reactions to LEMMINO's documentary on the Kennedy assassination, especially xQc's reaction (one of the largest streamers, with a particularly poor effort in his reaction).
Skit by Ryan George (of the Pitch Meeting series on YouTube) addressing these issues. He's a comedy channel but has great insight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zsbXosf5FM&t=8s
I don't see how. Blockchains create immutable records of who owns what, but as far as I am aware offer absolutely no facilities to prevent copying of data. As long as people can record their...
I don't see how. Blockchains create immutable records of who owns what, but as far as I am aware offer absolutely no facilities to prevent copying of data. As long as people can record their screen this will still be possible.
not to say there should be drm in everything, but there should be some method of fingerprinting to call back to the source automatically with a form of verification. probably some sort of...
not to say there should be drm in everything, but there should be some method of fingerprinting to call back to the source automatically with a form of verification.
probably some sort of invisible to the naked eye watermark like we see with screeners etc.
The entire ecosystem of reactions and streams is completely alien to me. I just don't really understand the value that they add to anything other than someone with a face... having a face?
This stuff has been prevelant throughout the entire time I've been on the Internet mind. There were whole 'wars' between 9GAG & Reddit in the 2010s for example and the watermarks being everywhere on memes and the such is just endlessly funny from that.
There's so much 'free' content online that this was always bound to be an issue. But it's good to see actual creative types being able to fight back against clowns who just hijack their stuff with a pretty face.
Unfortunately the average person simply doesn't care. Many of my friends who I'd consider to be intelligent and internet savvy have 0 issues sharing stolen videos on tik tok or Instagram. They spend hours watching bullshit "react" content. And it's only getting worse as the years go on
I don't really get the reaction stuff, who are these people that they're famous? I don't care about famous people generally as it is, do they expect that their ten views and hour will be anything but a data point to these people?
As a reaction video enjoyer (from major channels that follow policies about how much they show and do actively react, discuss, etc.) It hits the part of my brain that likes to see a friend react to a show I liked. You know the stereotype where you just watch the other person to see if they get the jokes.
That said, it's very different than just outright video theft and react. Probably the only thing I've cared to watch that way was New Zealand Taskmaster episodes because I was getting so many clips from the involved comedians' accounts. Even then it was truly a fan rip/post not a fake reaction.
That's the best way to describe it for me. I actually like watching a show or movie on my own. But a reaction video is fun just to see how someone else reacted to the same thing.
I just watched Leagle Eagle's video on the subject. I wasn't aware of how many channels just straight up repost other content with little to no reaction or commentary or editing.
Yeah the ones I watch are definitely professionals with a desire to follow fair use. Would they post the whole thing if allowed? Sure. But they're abiding by the rules. I also try not to fall into the parasocial trap. I'm using them for their response to the videos they're using me for views. I don't have a relationship beyond that.
The thing that bothers me the most that a good set of the reaction video creators are literal millionaires with actual teams of people to manage stuff for them.
And they still can't be arsed to properly credit whoever's content they are freebooting.
But they do react instantly if the target files a takedown request, by clipping away the offending bit.
The professional teams I watch do credit and tell people to watch on the original source, etc. If they post full reactions it's without the media at all (and usually via patreon) and they limit to ten minutes of the original footage for a TV show and usually 20 for a movie (ish, I don't pay that tight of attention)
But I'm not watching streaming reacts or twitch so that may just be the bias of what I've seen and engaged with.
Same. It might be because I'm an older internet user, but I'm not attached to creators as if they're my friends. I'm a fan because of their content.
It seems to currently be more prevalent among streamers, since, as mentioned in the video, they aren't always kept as VODs afterward to be scrutinized. But additionally, streaming platforms (minus YouTube) are a lot less active with copyright in general - which can be part of what fosters the attitude, along with the live aspect.
There has been an increasing amount of discussion as well though, as a lot of bigger "vapid" streamers like Hasan and XQC have been (rightfully) criticized for it.
I think this is probably one of the bits I lack, I don't really have that. If I send something to someone, then it's likely they'll enjoy it. But I don't get any personal edification from their enjoyment. Who knows?
Is it still Lord Greg Davis? Because anything else is anathama.
I cannot explain why that's a thing that itches a particular part of my brain. I like other people enjoying things. People pleasing? Empathetic? Lack of boundaries? My educational background in counseling? Idk
No but Aussie and Kiwi Taskmaster are hilarious. Their little assistants manage to almost live up to Alex Horne and the world seems to have adopted Paul from NZ as their precious.
The original is still best though. I just started season 16 since it's now actually available on YouTube!
Greg Davis is our lord and saviour. Also, he's a goddamn giant in person as well. The show does not suitably prepare you for his presence.
I also watch reaction videos sometimes, but man, in some of them the person is not even trying to react. Like, sometimes I watch a funny video and think "haha, I wonder what that streamer thought of it". And then I open the reaction clip and it literally starts with the YouTuber starting the video and LEAVING THE ROOM to get food or go to the toilet or something. Like dude, wtf, you couldn't have done that before starting the video? Do you think you're gonna lose all of your viewers if you leave the stream for two minutes without playing a random video?
Yeah wow I've never seen that. I don't watch any streams though just edited videos
In the video linked for this post, one of the creators that was included in discussion called it a "watch party" and I think that's a good way of viewing these, and highlights some flaws in the current social media systems. There's clearly a demand for people to want to be able to watch things with others, and in particular the parasocial relationships people form with streamers or just certain reaction "creators" if you can call them that (I'm referring to non-live stream sources as well). It'd kinda be like watching things with friends, except these people are more like faux friends but if you consistently watch them then it's still different than if you just watched with random people.
If you're a twitch streamer for example, in order to watch a youtube video together with your audience in a way that isn't just freebooting or possibly exploiting grey areas around fair use, you'd need to share a link to the youtube video in the chat and get everyone to click on it and start the video at the same time to achieve a similar experience as it is when they just play it on stream.
Basically there's a demand for a way to watch this content together live and more rapid pace, but there's no technical solution being provided to accomplish this. (There's also people who aren't just doing it live but are making Youtube videos or TikTok videos and the same ideas still apply, it's less a watch party and still more a parasocial faux friendship element keeping it going) That doesn't justify freebooting, but it might help better explain why it happens. I think the large platforms could probably do a better job of providing some technical solutions to this. For example on Twitch, if there was some kind of Youtube embed integration, perhaps Twitch partners (meaning not just random Twitch streamers but people who have gone through a process to become more legitimized by Twitch) could queue up Youtube video links and the embed gets placed next to the streamer's face within the Twitch site. Basically the Twitch streamer would control when each video gets played. The embed would sorta fix this issue because Youtube creators have the ability to approve of embeds or not.
Now I have no clue if that's technically even possible to code or that it would even work, I'm just trying to illustrate how this problem could possibly be resolved by technical solutions (if such are possible). One of the problems here of course is that there will be ads on those videos for some, and not for others, so it throws off the timing that doesn't happen when the Twitch streamer freeboots. I don't watch these react streamers but I assume most of them either use an adblocker or pay for Youtube premium to skip ads as it's a small price to pay to then be able to stream to an audience of thousands and none of them have to see the ads. If they're not doing this, then it's simple, everyone was already watching ads that the Twitch streamer was playing on stream, so they just watch the ads in the embeds. However if they were doing this, then maybe they could do something where the Twitch streamer pays a certain amount of money to make each link they queue up ad-free for their whole audience (assuming Twitch streamer is making money off this, and ads might be a deterrent to viewers, providing the pricing is rational they could be incentivized to pay this ad-free option, which would go to the creators of the videos they are reacting to). This would of course require some integrations between different platforms like Youtube, Twitch, TikTok etc. but if these technical solutions are even possible, then they should have some responsibility in mitigating the widespread copyright infringement by implementing these types of solutions.
It's also partly an issue of competition, legally there's not enough pressure on these platforms to implement these kinds of solutions, and surely they aren't simple to achieve and would cost money to implement. There's already a huge barrier to entry to making something that competes with these platforms, but a platform that tries to achieve a copyright friendly implementation doesn't get any advantages in competition because the legal system isn't applying any pressure onto the current platforms.
It's also sort of the fault of the flawed copyright system. I don't know what the ideal solution to it is because there's not enough discussion on solutions, but something like a 30 year copyright length might be reasonable in my view, rather than the current length which is like 9304834908 years (or something like lifetime of author +70 years). There might be more pressure to better define terms of fair use if copyright legislation wasn't insane. The DMCA in particular is an abomination. I am not a big fan of many aspects of copyright, but I do see the problem with react content freebooting videos and I don't think it should be legal but at the same time I'm not exactly going to fight for fair use to be weakened as long as the rest of the system is so broken.
It's not really a technical problem - the tech is there. An example of a legal version of this is the offical Twitch Watches X. Twitch basically licenses shows and streams them, and you can watch them "with" everyone else in the chat. I know they did the Pokemon Movies and a lot of YuGiOh (good choices - nostalgia + "so bad it's good" aspects).
Yeah that's licensing like one set of IP with one owner, and it's very specific and recognizable IP. That's not really feasible to accomplish on a more widespread scale if you're viewing content prolifically. Just like a lot of other aspects of copyright law aren't suitable or viable at scale so there were solutions created on top of that. Youtube's Content ID is an example, if they were all still relying on DMCA takedowns to manage it all the system probably wouldn't even work, which likely created the incentive to make something else.
Those are also done infrequently seemingly. Why don't they do it for everything and just shitcan all the reaction streamers then? Because they recognize trying to license everything to keep streams going all the time would be a nightmare.
Edit: I think I've found a way to explain this a little better.
For live streaming, these platforms have created a technical solution to a demand, perhaps inadvertently for this specific case. That demand is letting multiple people watch many things all together at once, fully synchronized with a chat etc. and even a "tour guide" in some cases where the streamer wants to add commentary, or for some it's just a visualization of a person watching with them. The problem is that their technical solution for this demand does not create a technical solution for licensing the content that is getting displayed. Someone who is starting out as a fairly new streamer doesn't have the capability of manually seeking out permission or licensing vast amounts of content that they would intend to display with this new technical solution that Twitch or anyone else is offering. Since there happens to be a grey area with fair use and reaction content, they get a pass on the licensing to some extent through fair use (though most of them haven't been legally tested so as this topic and others have speculated, many of these people aren't meeting the fair use criteria).
The demand for viewing the content this way is valid and not even intending to infringe copyright, nor does it only exist because it infringes copyright. The streamer is making tons of money, so clearly there's money flowing in to support it. It just lacks a way to facilitate properly licensing the content and directing some of that money towards those who made the content that people are watching.
So, what you're saying is there's a dissoance of old where we used to have that "Hey man, did you see <x> last night?!" that we had as kids in the 90s, and what we have now? Maybe you're on to something there?
I think it's the persona that I don't really give that much of a shit about. CPGrey for example is brilliant, because it's insightful, smart and usually absurdist stuff that his mind has taken him down one day (I can relate with ADHD in a big way). Where as SniperWolf or whatever... it's just her face shoving her SEOified-opinion down your throat about really inane things?
I always see those kinds of things where peoples lives are so mundane that they make a really big deal out of having an opinion about every little thing. Rather than specialising in knowledge and not letting others bother you? There's a bit on the video where it cuts to her talking about indicators on a car. I just sat there with a "Good lord, how banal must that channel be?" despite it having an insane following.
It just leaves me really perplexed.
Wonder if we'll see that the EU / UK start to become more technologically grumpy about US Tech Platforms and their excessiveness?
Yeah I do think its something along those lines, it's just an evolution of social media and social interaction (if you can even call it that). I didn't really understand it at first either, but framing it this way makes the most sense to me. That's why I also view it as partly a technical deficiency of the platforms, because there might be some streams I watch, though not nearly to the extent other people are watching these people, I don't watch reaction content because I don't care for it, but I do see the value to some extent in being able to interact with others while viewing the content. On the streams I do watch on occasion, I use the chat sometimes. I also used to post on Reddit all the time and now I post on tildes, a lot of this is partly just having some content and then people reacting to it and discussing it. It just happens I'm older and prefer more long-form content and discussion so this format works fine for me, but it's not for everyone.
You might say you can just post a comment on the Youtube video, but a lot of content is ephemeral. It's another reason why I have problems with copyright. In some cases the content is relevant because other people are talking about it, and when they stop talking about it, it becomes less relevant. It's like schrodinger's relevancy of content. A lot of videos I watched in the past, many people haven't seen today and they're not any worse off for it. A lot of videos peak once, and then they're mostly done. They might get posted on reddit, a bunch of people watch and comment etc., and then it might die after that. It's not exactly live, you get to do it at your own pace sort of.
These reaction videos sort of bring back some of the ephemeral elements of that content, because posting a comment on a youtube video that was uploaded 4 years ago isn't going to net you much engagement. There's nothing to bring people together at a specific time to do it.
That leads to the parasocial part.
I view these people as sort of "curators" if you will. It might be too generous a term, but it gets the point across. They're curating the things that bring all those people together at once to have these ephemeral experiences, and apparently they're doing a good enough job to get people to keep coming back. You could say, of course its easy to do that when you can pick all the best content that already exists and had proven success and piggyback off it without having to pay anything to do it, but seemingly for whatever reason people are drawn to the same person for each experience, so I guess who knows what the true reason is.
Really it's not substantially different than some other things people do to kill time. Some people will turn on a TV show they've seen 50 times already and let it play mostly in the background, or used to be people would just turn on the TV and channel surf to random shit that could entertain them. There's shows like Maury or Jerry Springer or whatever other stuff people watch that I can't find any value in, so I guess why would it be any different in more modern ways. Also consider this, a lot of sitcoms back in the day put in laugh tracks, and while they're not necessary to make an enjoyable sitcom, if you've ever watched one where it doesn't bother you and you can just watch the show and enjoy it even with a laugh track, it almost has a feeling like you're watching it with other people or not alone.
I just think that the social platforms don't have the right incentives to provide solutions to the problem, but I think with the right technical solutions it could still exist. I don't think it only exists because they're piggybacking off others work for free, I think it does provide some additional value to the people watching it that doesn't exist from the original sources, but these platforms need to find a technical solution to fulfill that demand rather than letting the streamers just piggyback off others for free.
I like your take on this. Your explanation puts some puzzle pieces together that I was missing to explain my own behavior when engaging with this content. It's good I think to frame it as not good or bad, but an evolution of social norms. This extremely powerful Internet was dropped on us and here we are decades later still trying to figure out how it fits into our lives in a healthy way. I don't think we are there yet by any means, but I'm hopeful after seeing some of the thoughtful discussions here. 🤞
there are a few, but it's not something a huge tech company is actively pursuing. It's more of a logistics issue. There will inevitably be some shared viewing among families, but for the most part companies don't like it, because it's not something they can track. One of the big limitations compared to physical venues, or cable where you can at least get a rough idea of a household and take into account multiple viewer.
I would like to add to this and mention that it's also a logistics issue in terms of getting people together to watch something at the same time and pretty much impossible to do so consistently - at least it has been in my experience. There is also simply so much content now and even with popular media, there's a chance nobody you know might be interested in watching it. So these reactions would be the only way to scratch the itch of getting the enjoyment from watching something you like with another person, as @DefinitelyNotAFae mentioned.
I definitely got more into it during the pandemic as well. But I also had my major social activities die during that time and never pick back up again so I don't have a lot of in-person opportunities to watch these things with others.
I totally get that! I also started watching them for similar reasons so I know where you're coming from.
The technical solution has to come from the platforms where the copyright infringement is flourishing. Essentially, the scale at which copyright infringement occurs is because of the scale of the platforms, and the only solution that's realistically going to be able to achieve comparable scale to that is by meeting demand while reducing copyright infringement through a technical solution on the very platform that the problem arises from.
I don't see it as a logistics issue necessarily, they would probably get more data if they had a proper technical solution than the data they get the way it operates now, or at the least the equivalent amount of data, depends on what perspective you look at it from.
For example, if Twitch streamers could embed auto-play youtube videos (or tiktok videos, mix and match these platforms where appropriate) and overlay their face all within the Twitch app or website, and control the sequencing of those auto-play embedded videos, Youtube and the people who made the videos on Youtube would now know their videos are being played and where, because it would be done using official means provided by Youtube and the creator of the video (provided that someone doesn't re-upload the video onto Youtube with another account). Twitch would also gain more information by knowing what videos are being played, even though I'm not sure how valuable that information would be to them.
Overall I'm not saying that's an incentive for either of them to work on such a feature or support such a feature, I'm just saying I don't think such a solution would reduce their tracking data. I think there's many other reasons why they might not want to have such integrations, like Youtube could turn that type of feature into a competitive advantage if it was on their own livestreaming service and they blocked Twitch from being able to do it. The problem is that without legal pressure to stop the current form of reacting, there's no incentive to create a more complex system to respect the copyright of others' content.
I'm only talking about live because it's easier to pick one and use that, but obviously there's other solutions to ones where people are uploading videos of reaction content that isn't respectful of copyrights or fair use.
I agree the copyright systems are a huge barrier. But despite that, there are "easy" technical solutions.
But all of these have obvious logistical issues in executing. There can be better technical solutions if they didn't have to work around DMCA, but such logistics would still occur. your embedded solution still requires some financial incentive to get off the ground, and monetization factors to iron out between involved parties even if everyone did play ball. But those factors would take much longer to work on than any technical implementation.
I mostly wanted to emphasize that they lack the tracking data to properly implement this. Ultimately, it is hard enough as is to convince ad networks they they are getting organic views from engaged viewers, and this will only get harder as more and more AI-generated content floods the internet. So trust is eroding, and fast. Companies are also being hardballed for their past 2 decades of aggressive tracking so it's a political minefield to suggest adding even more telemetry to get around this.
They more than burned their goodwill here, so to speak. Companies are always lawsuit averse, but this is happening a lot more now than ever before.
Those who watch reaction videos are in a way seeking validation. They like to see the things they enjoy, also being liked and appreciated by other people. At best it makes people feel more connected and at worse it's about feeling more relevant and important. So like most things on Social Media, it's about scratching the ego and appealing to vanity, which becomes an engine that fuels the genre's growth.
It's simply a matter of community. The Third Place has declined in part because people will seek that form of third place through some sort of online community. Be it a forum, imageboard, or a streaming personality. It may seem fleeting or superfluous for someone with physical connections to rely on, but that simply seems to be enough for a modern person. It's helpful that it becomes easy to disengage at least.
Fwiw, there is more obvious allure for certain personalities outside of being funny. Some are experts (speedrunners or pro players) and you watch someone who performs at a level you can't hope to reach. Some work in industry and their commentary can reveal some nuggests of wisdom you won't find among most f the internet. Some may have fluffier stream content but are bound to compliment it with a more thorough retrospective later on.
also the other obvious caveat from the "proper" channels is advertisement. If you are a growing channel, for instance, and some million+ subscriber youtuber wants to react to your content: well, that just works out for both sides of the equation. big youtuber gets content, smaller youtuber gets more people piped to their content. Maybe even people not subscribed to either of them simply because the algorithm will favor the larger youtuber's content in feeds.
I think enjoying watching things with other people, and viewing other people's reactions, is a very innate human element that comes from the eons of evolution that promoted social behavior in our ancestors. It's difficult to really explain, but have you never enjoyed watching something with friends, even if you're not saying all that much during it?
Now, you can get into whether or not streamers count as "friends" or if that counts as "watching together", but regardless it tickles that part of the brain, which is why it's a popular form of content.
Freebooting content has always gotten under my skin (part of the reason why I worked so hard to kill it on /r/videos.) It seems like people are finally starting to get sick of it.
The audacity for any "creator" to defend this is wild to me.
I first learned of the term free booting on Hello Internet. Are you a Tim?
I still wait in vain hope that it'll return 😢
Me too. I check the feed every once and a while in hopes there is a new one and to make sure I have notifications on.
“You can’t (or at least shouldn’t) watch my content if I’m not earning anything for it” huh. Now YouTubers want to play the publisher’s game.
I say we should abolish copyright law and most (if not all) content should be free (libre).
What's the incentive for anyone to create content if they know it's going to be stolen and profited on by other people?
Speaking as a starving artist of sorts, I never anticipate my work being a source of income, and still make it. This myth that the only useful motivator is profit seems at odds with the concept of art itself, honestly.
It's a pretty concept, but most of the creators I watch would not be able to make the content they make without being able to support themselves through their work.
People like Tom Scott, Lemmino, Mandalore, Wendover, etc spend days upon days working on creating content and deserve to profit off of it.
They should all just do it for fun because "art should be free"? The only way I see that system working for most people is in a economic system where you aren't required to work to live, which I support but is definitely not going to be the reality for a long time.
I mean, yes? Copyright is demanding that the entire world bend over and refuse to incorporate information into their own art, it demands that people do not share things which are, primarily, made for the sake of being shared, even if the current context demands that they find a way to pay for their necessities with them. That is absurd. In what way does my or your or anyone's desire for edutainment or any other "content" justify such overreach? It's one thing to argue that private ownership of physical things is valid, because they exist as spatial entities which inherently can only occupy one place, but to say that the words or images someone creates must be monopolized by force feels entirely baseless except as a way to cope with the larger issues in our society. I'd rather we fix those issues than to create more injustice as a bandaid, especially if that bandaid means privatizing concepts.
I believe we live in fundamentally different worlds and aren't going to be able to come to any sort of agreement on this. I appreciate your perspective but I can't find any common ground with a realistic approach to solving this problem in our world today.
Until we live in a post scarcity society that provides all needs and wants without effort, I will continue to support people's right to the sweat of their brow when it comes to content creation. Especially when the alternative is "creators" like xQc stealing your content to make himself rich off of other people's hard work with no effort of his own.
Sure, I kind of figured as much.
I feel like this conflation of demanding compensation for work done without a guarantee of pay (which itself feels like basic entitlement, but is obviously not rooted in anything untoward) with a system most geared toward further enrichment of incumbent parties rather than the actual artists is dangerous. That it, in a way, is a long term method of preventing that stage, at which you've said you'd happily discard intellectual property, from coming to be.
As it stands, sure, my art is copyrighted, but if (somehow) a major publisher broke into my home or hacked my backup server and "stole" my art, I wouldn't be able to realistically challenge them, even if I had receipts to demonstrate the "theft" beyond doubt. I just couldn't afford it. On the other hand, the Tolkien estate still insists they own words like orc and hobbit, a hundred years after a dead man coined the terms, and it seems every year a music publisher is able to establish precedent which expands the label of "infringement" even further beyond a scope that any musicians or music scholars recognize as valid.
With the example you give, it sounds like you're more frustrated with the cost of ensuring copyright in the current system, not with copyright itself. I'll give an example of my own that's more relevant to the original topic. You spend 1000 hours creating a Youtube video, you upload it to Youtube. Immediately 50 other channels steal it and upload it to their own channels and get many more views, subscribers, and comments. You have the option (for free) to copyright strike them via Youtube's system to either remove their videos or claim the lost revenue from them, do you take it?
Sure, but it was just an example of the perverse outcomes justified by something designed "for artists". I'm trying to bridge the difference in fundamental worldview rather than just repeat my opinion at you.
I can confidently say I would not make a YouTube video that I wouldn't be prepared to see taken and reuploaded ad infinitum. I'd rather it be cited, and if I need the money to live, I'll obviously click the "claim" button, but I promise I'd feel bad for it, and probably would "just" get a job.
With that perspective, I can assure you your view is wildly different than most content creators online, which is fine; but its important to remember that their opinion on the subject matters too, because they're the ones being affected.
We are all affected. Just because they're fortunate enough to benefit from a rigged game doesn't justify it.
It's been interesting watching Adam Neely (music theory YouTuber and practicing musician) slowly become disillusioned with copyright in its entirety, after analyzing multiple lawsuits like that...and then getting YouTube strikes from the party he was defending, in one case. (The icing on the cake is they manually flagged a part of the video with the other song.)
Copyright is fundamentally incompatible with art, even without the broad expansion. It restricts creativity, all so capitalists can have more imaginary property to rent-seek with.
I will always be very academically minded on the subject: copyright is trash, but there should be laws against plagiarism.
You can and should expect that since most people aren't lucky enough to earn a living that way. It's just realistic.
Reality is also that someone is getting paid here. Why shouldn't it be the original creator?
You can both support the creators here (who presumably are incentivized at least partly by the potential earnings) while also argue that art should be free and should be done for the sake of the art itself. But if YouTube is filled with ads, there are some people in the chain more deserving of compensation than others. Why would you defend the big ones exploiting others, smaller creators, seeing as you also don't like things like Tolkien estate insisting they own the concept of an orc? Both can be bad, they aren't at odds with each other.
I'm not defending big channels exploiting smaller ones. I'm arguing against a dangerous legal fiction that's used as a snare to entrap us. The more that artists feel entitled to compensation, the harder it gets to fight against a system that's as much a monstrous parasite on our culture as it is an agent determining people's worldviews. This is a ratcheting mechanism, and the only way out is to disregard the local context for the larger goal.
It's not clear to me why artists shouldn't feel entitled to compensation? Is creative work not deserving of compensation same as with any other type of work?
The thing that entitles most workers to compensation is an agreement to be paid. If someone wants to pay an artist for their art, or to commission them to make art, then of course they're deserving. But labor does not generate market value, it just substantiates it.
It's totally reasonable for an artist to want compensation, but copyright is not an ethical pathway to that. As we conceive of it, intellectual property exists to enrich and cement mass media companies as the sole arbiters of reality, to capture creative productivity for their profits, and to undermine grassroots social movements. Sure, it's nice that some artists get to subsist off making art and selling their copyright to those companies, but very few of them get any creative control, and the number of independent artists who survive off of it is very small, and usually the least pro-copyright cohort of these groups. The power of these systems is in their aggregate, and why would Disney support legislation that enabled anyone else to live to compete? So it's a tool that's framed as for the artist when all it seems to do is silence that which isn't four-quadrant popular, or at least doesn't have an individual wealthy patron.
I guess I have to say that I'm biased because I'm a full-time artist who makes a living out of licensing my art out, and I am lucky to have creative control in many of my projects. I've also benefited from copyright law protection, as an independent artist in a third-world country who has successfully gone after infringing brands in a first-world country. (I actually just settled another case today.) I just wanted to give the perspective of someone who's directly affected by this.
The existing copyright system is definitely problematic, but calling for its outright abolishment is just as extreme as calling for the outright abolishment of generative AI. I would say I'm neither pro-copyright nor anti-AI, but pro-artists and pro-laborers in general.
Just as with AI, copyright's problem lies in its abuse by corporations. I would support, for example, drastically reducing copyright protection of corporate-owned IP. And drastically reducing copyright protection after the original creator's death (I think it should only go as far as safeguarding the welfare of the creator's young dependents if any). I also don't see any reason why corporations should be allowed to continue owning the copyright to something even after the original creator's death. Amending copyright in ways like this would address the issue of corporate greed while still protecting artists, which is supposed to be the whole point.
Again. Everyone is directly affected by this. It shapes culture and impacts how we raise children.
I understand economic realities, and don't hold any ire for you or anybody who survives on wages built upon copyright. In particular, it's great to hear that you've had success defending your own claims, I'm not gonna hate on anybody trying to get by in this messy system.
However, you must understand that your perspective is one that is necessarily supportive of the status quo for that reason. This isn't to imply anything about your quality of character or moral outlook, it's more that...of course you do, someone who doesn't see the validity of these things probably won't end up in such a field. And of course, your perspective is valid and important and I'm glad we're talking. But your staked claim is taking the rights of others' away, in the same sense that someone else cannot sit in your seat without you moving first.
Calling for abolishment of IP is inherently less extreme than banning generative models. It comes down to the fact that one is a legal fiction, and the other is an algorithm. One exists exclusively as legislation, that has no fundamental basis in human rights, the other is an outgrowth of humans trying to understand ourselves and the world around us that can be replicated in a practical instant by anyone with a modern computer and an internet connection. One would cease to exist the instant that the state monopoly on violence fell, and banning the other would require a massive shift in law enforcement which would inevitably infringe on everyone's civil rights, in order to preserve the paychecks of a slim minority of workers.
We tolerate the injustices of homelessness and seatlessness (to loop back to my earlier analogy) because there are physical, actual things that make it hard. Sure, we could house and seat everyone tomorrow if Bill Gates flashed enough cash, but that foundation is why we as humanity are willing to put up with it. But now we want to treat conceptual space as real estate too? Where is the justice in that?
I'm not understanding how enforcing my copyrights "takes rights away from others"? If that's what you meant. Preventing people from accessing my art (such as putting it behind a paywall) is not the same as, for example, preventing access to medicine/water/electricity. If someone else makes a piece of art I don't see how it's a part of my human rights to be able to benefit from their work without their consent. I didn't work for it and I'm free to just make my own.
(Btw I appreciate you taking the time to make your tone as clear as possible on this!)
I take issue with this reconnoitering of "rights" that's happened in the last few decades. The idea is founded on natural rights, those which can only be guaranteed against via force or coercion, rather than things that people generally deserve.1 People have a right to expression and communication. Claiming you're the only one who can sell a piece of art is one thing, but as we all know, copyright pertains to noncommercial distribution, derivative works, and even replication for personal use. Even that initial, relatively reasonable demand, implies that there's no practical labor or materials cost in actual counterfeiting, but I'm not aware of any copyright system that doesn't extend into at least preventing derivation. Just that is unambiguous restriction on speech.
1: This is not an argument against "the right to healthcare", or whatever, as a concept, it's mostly a semantic issue.
Fair use already allows for those things. It can still be improved, of course, for ex. I don't agree that Anne Rice should have been able to sue people over fanfiction 😂 but yeah so far I remain unconvinced that total abolishment is what's needed rather than amendments like I've suggested, and the strengthening of initiatives such as Creative Commons. I'd be happy to have copyrights abolished under utopian conditions though, like in a post-scarcity civilization where there's a sustainable abundance of goods that are truly accessible to everyone. I don't see the abolishment of copyright as something that would help lead towards that utopian future, either; I think it makes more sense (and has less "collateral damage") to getjregulation that more directly and precisely targets corporate greed (antitrust laws, nerfing corporate IP ownership).
I don't think that your vision of copyright would be anywhere near as caustic as the deal we have today, but at that point, we may as well abandon the term. The narrow definition of fair use is definitely the culturally accepted one, thanks to the last century of jurisprudence, and it's been a very long time since it mainly protected against counterfeiting.
I feel comfortable saying we understand each other, and I'm glad we could have this back and forth. Let me know if I've been unclear or otherwise.
I'm not particularly attached to the term; and am also open to alternative systems for supporting artists, such as the "artistic freedom voucher".
Yes, thank you for this discussion!
Do we need more content? More pointedly, must it be a goal of public policy to maximize the rate of content creation? There are already multiple lifetimes of videos—not to mention the music, comics, and books. Multiple lifetimes that more than one data hoarder has in their respective home data centers.
I'm sorry but I don't think I could ever understand the idea of "isn't there enough content?"
Not everyone is interested in everything. Most people like niches of content and those aren't inexhaustible, for some niches it's a pretty shallow well to draw from.
If I wanted to just sit down and autoplay tik tok compilations for the rest of my life maybe I'd agree with you. But I actually have only a few things that really interest me in terms of content, and saying "ok that's enough, we don't need anymore we're all good" seems really goofy to me.
Should they stop making new video games because not everyone has played through the 10,000,000 flash games available online?
But is it worth using the state monopoly on violence (or even just the civil court system) to ensure there are incentives to create new video games?
I feel like you're getting out of scope of the original point here. The whole point of this post was condemning people who freeboot videos online, not arguing the philosophy of the copyright system to it's every flaw.
I'm a little torn as this is obviously an incredibly nuanced topic, but I couldn't help but listen to them talking about how the copyright strike system "can't easily be abused" and think back to the hundreds of examples that prove otherwise that I've listened to well respected YouTubers rant about for years.
That gets under my skin in a "are we the baddies?" sorta way that makes me question a lot here.
There was quite a bit of controversy over reactions to LEMMINO's documentary on the Kennedy assassination, especially xQc's reaction (one of the largest streamers, with a particularly poor effort in his reaction).
LEMMINO just posted a 5 million subscriber special Q&A, and the first question he answers addresses react "content".
Skit by Ryan George (of the Pitch Meeting series on YouTube) addressing these issues. He's a comedy channel but has great insight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zsbXosf5FM&t=8s
wouldn't this be a good use for blockchain somehow?
I don't see how. Blockchains create immutable records of who owns what, but as far as I am aware offer absolutely no facilities to prevent copying of data. As long as people can record their screen this will still be possible.
not to say there should be drm in everything, but there should be some method of fingerprinting to call back to the source automatically with a form of verification.
probably some sort of invisible to the naked eye watermark like we see with screeners etc.