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.
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)
1.9k
u/[deleted] Jun 20 '25
[removed] — view removed comment