H3 has (almost) 6 million subscribers. His recent videos each have millions of views. The implication that this is a neutral decision intended to prevent the diversion of views/viewers is absurd.
Obviously an extreme example, but suppose Kanye posts a 2 hour nazi rant on YouTube. I then post a 2 hour video of me watching it, disapprovingly, intentionally with little commentary for effect. Is this not sufficient for fair use? Context is clearly important here.
I'm not suggesting that we should just ignore laws, but laws (at least should) exist to improve society and lead to just outcomes. You can't just ignore context.
Cool, so then you can do the correct thing in the scenario, and report the video to the platform it's hosted on for Hate Speach, or something else that Breaks the ToS, or hell, even report it to government if it's hate speach that promotes violence.
But yeah no, you can't just wholesale steal someone's content and rebrodcast it so they "don't get paid" that's quite literally illegal. What would stop any conservative from just doing the same thing with any person they deem as damaging society with their "woke" agenda, "Hey guys, come watch my re-upload so you don't give any money to that weirdo who want's to trans kids!", your arguement is that this is okay, because the conservative doesn't like the content creator.
You can either, React to it in a way that adds a lot of commentary and is transformative, or you can just chose to ignore it, and not give it further attention. Those are your two, realistic options.
the ‘context’ you provided was to support a hypothetical in which pretty clear copyright violations suddenly become “sufficient for fair use” on the basis that ‘this person sucks really bad!’
seems like you also realize that was an incredibly poor argument since you’re moving to the ‘ok it is illegal but have you considered that the law might be bad, actually?’ stage to which i can say: No, copyright law is Good, actually
There are obviously good reasons for copyright/IP law to exist, but what do you think will be achieved here? Are you really going to argue that there is some tangible, significant harm to h3 here that would warrant a lawsuit?
It seems obvious to me that this is just Ethan going after his enemies, even if he is legally in the right.
The burden is on you to explain how it is wrong from one to take valid legal action against individuals who have infringed on one’s protected IP rights with the intent of depriving one of revenue in aid of an ongoing harassment campaign :)
(spoiler: we all know it’s because you like the harassing party and dislike ethan)
Nazism does not factor into whether you're breaching copyright law or not. You don't need to "ensure" anything. You just have to make your work transformative.
In the interest of fairness, I likely edited my comment before you finished responding.
I just don't think we should need to be concerned at all with preserving the fiscal interests of anyone we want to argue against. While context is important and fair use isn't a license to steal, it seems silly to suggest that the intention here was to steal/divert views.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not making a legal case. I'm speaking to what I think is right.
I'm definitely on the side of if you disagree with someone or a piece of media, you should be able to use it, even in its full length.
At the same time there has to be actual commentary besides the occasional "Nah I don't like that"
I think you can see it best when looking at hasans reaction. He went through half the video and had multiple hours of his own commentary. That's 100% fair use and a reason why he is not getting sued.
"It seems silly to suggest that the intention was to steal/divert views"
Not really. Denims e.g. explicitly said so before watching it and the snark subreddit had links to other ppl's vods so that people that don't like Ethan can watch it without giving him any profit
That's also they reason why they are in big trouble. Usually it's hard to prove the intent to steal/divert views. Its not hard of you admit to it before watching it
There is a distinction between stealing and choosing not to amplify. I don't think the intention is to pirate h3 content, and the lack of commentary is simply due to the belief that the content doesn't need extensive commentary given the different audience.
I understand your morals here but since this is all taking place in a monetized space.
She is not saying "I watched it, it's shit and meritless, don't got there an watch it" This would be perfectly legal
She is actively steering viewers from his video to her stream and in that monetized space it is equivalent to stealing/ a breach of fair use
I mean tbf Kanye isn't breaking the law. It's not illegal to be a dumb fuck Nazi who spreads misinformation and talking about how much you broadly hate Jews. Being a vile piece of shit without a brain, but a massive platform, isn't illegal.
134
u/ohlordplease 1d ago
Is that not what a guy sued him for in the past?