Huge YouTuber Drama
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2024
- FACT CHECK SHEET ►bit.ly/MogulMailCorrections
follow me on twitter ► / ludwigahgren
follow me on tiktok ► / ludwigahgren
follow me on instagram ► / ludwigahgren
join my subreddit ► / ludwigahgren
LINK TO EVERYTHING ► wlo.link/@ludwig
This Video Took 5 Takes
#mogulmail #ludwig
The problem isn't react content, the problem is freebooting content disguised as react content
But react content is literally that, the amount of people who actually discuss what they're looking at for a considerable amount of time is miniscule, I can only think of one reactor on youtube who spends almost as much time discussing what they watched as they did watching the video, on twitch sometimes they don't even watch shit and just get up to go to the bathroom while leaving the video on for the audience, it's disgusting
It's actually both. There's just no way that profiting off of someone else's original work while siphoning audience exposure from that work should be legal. Prime offenders like xQc should absolutely be sued to set the precedent.
@@walberparker7111 just out of curiosity who is that one reactor?
@@Wwamess if I had to guess, I would say asmongold
Now I watch a lot of reactions from time to time, but I think the problem is in people not doing anything during it or reacting to another creator. If it's someone talking about what they're seeing and having a conversation or are in some way doing something more than just watching something. Like at least something that shows their personality and interests to the audience. For me thats an important thing if they're not someone in the field of a video reaction to something (like your assorted chef reactions, singer reactions etc). Plus reactions could lead to possible collaborations in time, like with Skallagrim and Ironmouse where something might come from that.
A bigger problem is that UA-cam will actively push reactions over the main content more often than enough
probably how the algorithm works, since reaction content are like watching 2 creators at the same time, and retention is higher on reaction video.
It's more money for YT the way it is now. Why would they push the small channel when the react channel gets way more watch time and ad views? I'm not agreeing with it, but I see why YT doesn't care.
Please more Ace family amirite @mickobee?
I think its only really appropriate if permission is given and/or the reactor promotes the creator on stream and on the cut video uploaded to the youtube channel. Since it'll probably get them more subs then if someone normally watched the video which will in turn push future videos from the creator into that person's recommended of course thats not always the case theres hundreds of very small react andy channels that really are just mooching off the creator's work since they provide no meaningful benefit to the growth of the creator's channel since the creator is bigger then them typically and by the reactor associating themselves with their video they are actually pulling people away from the creator.
Well yeah because the videos are longer and more interesting with reactors talking about the video
LEMMiNO is honestly one of my favourite UA-camrs, and to see his content being basically stolen truly upsets me. Imagine spending a Year of your life creating a documentary and then a streamer comes along, reacts to your video by pausing every 5 minutes, and gets more views than you.
Yeah except xqc's react video got 400k and lemmino's video got 5.3M.
@@12censed99 one was posted an entire week after the other, of course it’ll have less views right now
@@fort809 They both were posted on the same day. It takes 10 seconds to search this.
Edit (1 month later) - Ok im faded and bothered. The ratio above me doesn't make any sense. Im literally just right but don't take my word for it. The guy above me must have just pulled that out of his ass, because I checked the dates of both videos before I even made my original comment to avoid the possibility of this argument being made. But dude just went ahead and made the argument anyway. I want to add that I don't support the reuploading of react videos like these to youtube, however it doesn't make sense to make up lies and blow things out of proportion, that just indicates you are biased.
The current views of both videos
React video - 463k
lemmino - 7.3 Mil
1 Month since my original comment.
Im just right ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@12censed99 I would be pretty pissed if someone got 400k views out of my hard work without paying me a penny.
@@ziwuri Thats fair
UA-cam should introduce a "watch together" feature that allows streamers and their audience to watch a video together while the streamer can play or pause the audiences video.
That would give the original upload the views while the streamer gets to stream their reaction
Or the streamer actually does something productive with their time and majes their own content
the larger part of the problem is react videos and not reacting on livestream even if you introduce that feature it wouldn't solve the underlying problem plus it'd be difficult to integrate this feature over all streaming platforms mainly youtube, twitch, kick, facebook live etc.
Thats actually a super good idea. The problem is the original viewer doesnt get a view, despite a lot of people are viewing that video. Especially when react videos has soooo many videos views.
@@space5089people like watching react content. Whether or not it's easy to make or "good" it's popular. We need to deal with this
@@space5089 oh god...
maybeeeeee... the opinnions of public pepoles like "Mogul Mail" in a Reaction has value?
the opinnions of public pepoles like "Reaved" in a Reaction has value?
the opinnions of public pepoles like "grohnk" in a Reaction has value?
maybe not an mony value but an intrest velue...
One other reason that Jacksfilms has been so strongly against sssniperwolf (other than that her “reactions” are often just repeating what’s said in the original videos, narrating what’s happening instead of providing any commentary, or just straight up not reacting and going on other tangents) is that in many of her react video she and/or her editors crop out the username or whatever creator identification there was.
Which means that no matter your stance on the ‘larger creators reacting to smaller ones will give them more views and help grow their channel’ debate, sssniperwolf is intentionally taking credit away from the original, smaller creators and using their content to grow her already huge platform.
Editing out the original creators' username is so fucking scummy that I genuinely can't fathom how there are people actually defending sssniperwolf.
@@patrickangelobalasa Her fans are idiot 13yo boys who think she's hot.
if anyone needs to be copyright striked, it's her
Why do y'all think she does that (if she really does, I'm not saying that she doesn't I just never watch her content so I don't know for sure). I've been racking my brain and I'm trying to find the benefit of cropping out the original person's name/channel. Is it so people can't find out who they are and contact them to let them know that she's doing that? Is there some rule/code of conduct that she's avoiding by cropping their name out? Why would one do that?
The only huge reactor I can think of that actually does add to the content is Asmongold funnily enough, he actually does add his own vibes and thoughts to a fuckin vid and its great
The biggest crime is Ludwig saying he’s a gamer
Sir this is Mogul Mail, not ludwig
He is tho, people don’t play and speedrun countless games and own an esports team which they react to matches of, without being a gamer of sorts. Also he has like a mid-plat puff on slippi in a good day
Man didn't even finish hollow knight
He's a gamer journo.
@@Amalingall you need is some money bro 😂 I mean look at faze. Their downfall was when everybody started showing off their money and stopped playing games. But sure we can go with that.
There needs to be a union for videos as there is for music. ACTUAL CREATORS need copyright protection.
Which is ironic because music has infinite replay value as where informational and entertaining videos don't
@@Handler_One Those video also have a lot of replay value to those who don't have the attention span of a TikTok user. Same for great books, you don't read them once throughout your life
@@easy_eight2810 What im saying is that when someone reacts to a song, you still have incentive to go listen to the original song yourself, potentially many, many times. As for when you watch someone react to a video, you dont have much incentive to go watch the original for you have already gathered the info presented and dont need to watch it again.
funnily enough they do have it, a copyright strike, and many more options are there for creators and it takes 90 secs at max to fill the form and 100% chance of success
No
In Germany we had a few UA-camrs who specifically asked streamers to NOT react to their Videos for a full 24h after they released, after 24h they're free to react on Twitch and upload their reactions on UA-cam. One of those UA-camrs was Fritz Meinecke who made a Outdoor/Survival/Bushcrafting show called "7vsWild", not gonna go into specifics about the show but it took a long time and money to make so he said that streamers shouldn't react to the episodes for 24h so the actual epsiode would get most of its clicks. As far as I know every single streamer respected this.
It was a win-win situation tbh. Fritz got the views on his show, the streamers got the views on their reactions and the viewers got to see the episode and after at least one day they got to see the reaction of their favorite streamer to the episode.
If that's what the creator wants fine, if the creator gives them permission there's nothing unethical about them watching it right away. German UA-cam might be a very different ecosystem, but that wouldn't be a "win-win" for most creators.
@@88mphDrBrown I'm fairly confident that the reason most creators let people react to their videos is that either 1. they don't understand the fact that they and other original content creators will lose out on views or 2. they're afraid of the potential backlash of a misinformed audience. If everyone understood the concept of there being a finite amount of impressions/clicks/watchtime, nobody (except the reactors) would be ok with it.
@@ziwuri I agree. It's a complex argument and it's very hard for people to see the harm when it's diluted into the market as a whole. It's also Twitch, streamers, and UA-cam. The arguments function pretty much the same, but Twitch's dynamics really push streamers harder in the direction of react content. To attain success on Twitch streamers have to stream for long hours consistently, but a ton of the popular streamers don't have the work ethic and creativity to come up with 8-10 hours of live original content daily. I'm not saying that ethically justifies content theft, just that Twitch as a platform is sort of designed for react content. No offense, but it sounds like you've listened to and agree with Viper. I pretty much agree with all of his arguments, but the one problem I have with Matt is that he doesn't really talk about solutions. People aren't going to police themselves, but I can imagine UA-cam implementing some sort of horrible policy. Twitch and UA-cam seem very skilled at making the worst decisions possible. I think it would be better for react content to stay as is than have UA-cam implement some sort of bots that remove legitimate fair use videos.
@@88mphDrBrown His solution is to bring more awareness to the general public and youtube creators and potentially compel audiences to condemn reactors. He's said multiple times that it's a losing battle, but he just wants to do the right thing, even if it is in vain.
@@ziwuri I could buy that working with UA-cam, the public is mostly on his side. Even Hasan was admitting in his recent discussion with Ethan that UA-cam videos with effectively reuploaded content is blatantly wrong. Twitch is just exponentially better to the viewers experience allowing it. Again that doesn't justify it. If I played pirated new movies in my garage, everyone who came to my garage would probably think my "garage content" is dope.
Lemino: Spends hours to make one video - 💵
XQC : makes surprised pikachu face and slams desk 4 times - 💰💰💰💰💰
Even hours is too little time for such a video
Cry about it
@@theseagrape angsty 15 year old is angsty🥱🤡
@@Youllpayforthat most 15 year olds nowadays are never like that tho
@@jellymatsuryuka6853 did I say most 15 year olds or did I say he’s an angsty one? What
xQc is definitely a prime example, I’ve watched a lot of his react videos after watching the originals to see his opinion, and on multiple occasions he has not only watched the video in full with minimal commentary, he also MUTED his mic AND skipped the sponsor segment on the video. This is overkill and done in bad faith in my opinion.
Agreed, peak laziness.
He’s not a bright boy
Dude will leave for over an hour and leave the video playing
Not to downplay xqc’s react videos being lazy, but I’m assuming most people who watch those videos watch to see chat’s reaction rather than XQC himself, with minimal input from XQC at occasion.
It also doesn’t help his case that many times he doesn’t seem like he articulates words correctly. So on top of stealing content, it looks extra bad when his “commentary” makes him sound dumb. Even if he isn’t genuinely dumb
RevedTV was doing a livestream for 7 days, at the time of you checking on her stream, she was asleep and her cam stopped working.
Unlucky timing, yes, but if you had clicked on literally any VOD of her, you‘d see that she plays games, creates game shows, does regular Just Chatting content etc.
Kinda poorly done Mr. Mail
my thoughts exactly!! although i do find it kinda funny that he included reved. i feel like he probably just scrolled through the just chatting category to find anything matching the 'reaction stream' description and didn't put much more thought into it. i also doubt that he thinks playing soap cutting videos is a major offence lol
the funny thing is that she wasn't even on Just Chatting. The category was I am only sleeping@@somnolentcats
@@somnolentcatsYou'd think that wouldn't happen with 7 employees
i mean it was to make a point and he directly states that hes not calling them out so i dont think it really is that big of an issue to his overall point
@@retromei It's not an issue to his point at all. Was just clearing that up because we know how people on the internet are. I don't wanna give them a reason to hate on someone that - at least in my eyes - doesn't deserve it.
The most depressing with all of this is that viewers will go to react streamers to get their take on react content. This world is so fucking stupid. Imagine going to someone like asmongold for an unbiased take on this.
Yeah everyone here has a biased opinion on it, including Ludwig
If I go to Asmongold I'm not going for an unbiased take, I'm going to hear Asmongold's take.
asmongold and crit1kal are the few react content creators that actually well reacting to the video and interacting with their audience not like open the video and eating fast food
I sometimes watch something and then go to see how someone would react to seeing it but I dont usually do that unless I'm looking up the scene on YT and I see the vids in results
Well at least when it comes to Asmongold he gives a lot of input and actually reacts. Often times I see his reaction videos add anywhere from a third to double the time of the original videos. I also dislike content stealing so I watch the original video and like it before watching a reaction, both so I can get someone else's take and because I do think these content creators deserve to be appreciated. The one upside is with smaller content creators, generally they will gain much more traction if a big channel reviews one of their videos.
"Streamers have to eat and take breaks too!" Gets thrown around so much as a defense, as if the it's the original content creator's responsibility to help. It's like the option to just "Make your own content to entertain the stream when you're not there" is completely impossible.
Yeah, either turn off your stream during that time or produce some content in advance to fill breaks
It's such fucking bullshit as well. Because there are successful streamers that don't feel the need to do it. Look at DougDoug for example, I don't think he's ever done any react content.
@@crediblesalamander8056The only reason I can see for why certain streamers do this with leaving the video playing while they're gone, is that they might wanna keep chat engaged during breaks, which if that is the case, is kinda wild. It's like they see their rabid, hivemind chat as a child they have to babysit with someone else's content. When surely an interesting intermission card will do fine. Just give them a time frame for how long you'll be gone, so they know when to pop back in.
Play some music and an idle animation that you paid for and pay for a music license OR stop your stream while you take a break. The "streamers need breaks" argument is bullshit.
tbh that sounds like an argument that the child/teen viewers came up with to defend their favourite streamers, that other silly net dwellers like to regurgitate. In a serious discussion between logical parties that argument would be discredited immediately.
By the time a reaction video is transformative enough to be ethical it would no longer be a reaction video but a commentary video
Hm, that's an interesting distinction I hadn't considered
Really great point I also hadn’t thought of
This should be the top comment. It so perfectly sums up how a lot of people feel.
Love this comment and love these replies. Quite possibly the most level headed thing I've seen in a UA-cam comment section.
@@nonpondo_ difference is?
There should be the button that allows creators to claim monetization, but I think it would also be cool if they allowed them to have a sliding scale that says how much monetization they want to claim. That way if they believe a video is truly adding something they could only take a 50/50 split, encouraging the reactor to continue making content.
An added complexity to this is if the reactor reacted to videos from 10 different creators in one upload, how do they figure out the split? Though since UA-cam can identify your content in their video I suppose they could say "your videos make up 10% of the run time of this react video so you can claim up to 10% of the monetization for the video."
It would be cool if you could add a link to your channel in the corner on top of the segment of react video that's originally your content so it can help grow your channel too
@@jasperg2045 yeah youtube should be able to algorithmically be able to tell how much of that react video is the original so they give like a maximum that can be claimed maybe? but then again it would be the right of the person to take it down even for a few seconds and you limit that to only a part of it
everything is just different from case to case
Appreciate your enthusiasm bud but this idea is dogwater 🤷🏾♂️ sorry
@@jasperg2045 this actually happens when u use copyrighted music, they will claim portions of the ad revenue along with other copyright holders
as the person above me said, this idea is bs
I agree with your idea of giving creators the ability to monetize other people's videos *if* their work is actually in the video, but I would expand upon this further by adding that if you did this, you would only get a percentage of revenue equal to how much of the video is actually your content. One of the most frustrating things as a UA-camr is getting a copyright claim for 15 seconds of a random song you had in the background of your stream or was even part of a video game sometimes, and losing 100% of the revenue for your video, even though the song was 15 seconds in a 20 minute video of yours. The system you showed already shows how much of your content someone else is using, but it should be relative to their entire video too. I'd also have it take fair use into account, and if the person's video is transformative and very clearly fair use like the LegalEagle video you showed, you wouldn't be able to claim monetization on it. Perhaps a certain minimum limit needs to be hit of how much of your work they're using before you're able to claim monetization on it, dunno. Don't think a bot would be good at this though, would probably need an actual human being reviewing fair use cases and such, and it's doubtful UA-cam will put together and pay a huge team to do so.
I think there should be 1 or 2 cutoffs. Something like if the video uses 70%+ of your original video, you get to claim 100% of the revenue and if it's 25% or less, you can't claim it at all.
I think we can all agree
Jacksfilms is a force that can't be stopped.
He’s like a tank with a brick on the gas pedal
Jjjacksfilms reactions to SSSniperWolfs videos is more transformative than her own video. She devalues a video he re values it.
He's a second hand shop of UA-cam (he rules imo
Remember that time when he reacted to Jinx's reaction to his video? Dude just smiles throughout the whole video. Can't top that.
@@shinra4141 yesss 😂😂
he isn't even relevant anymore
I never understood why they couldn’t implement a feature where the streamer can input the url to whatever video they’re reacting to and have their livestream viewership carry over to the original video. I get why it’d be harder to make a site like twitch to it as their basically handing traffic to their competitor but UA-cam should easily be able to do this with no issue internally
This is the actual only real answer
This is one of the best ways to react imo, I watch Will Neff and he always plugs the video so we watch on another tab OR watch in another tab and mute the tab (not the video itself) so the original creator gets the bag. I think it would be great if other creators implemented this behavior.
Yes, I was thinking of an extension that will work like this: The reacter controls the video, but the viewers and their view get to the original video.
@@315peaks That does nothing for the video, modern analytics knows when you have a tab muted as well as minimized/unfocused.
@@brody5711 there would be a lot more to it that just copy pasting, it’d be fleshed out to have more precautions. But even still you’d need a substantial audience for it to be effective to exploit and even then I’d say that’s still an acceptable fault if it means the original content creators are getting more traffic
Was thinking the same thing. Smaller content creators being able to make money from bigger creators "reacting" to their videos with a straight face for 30 minutes (or not even being there) would fix a lot of problems. It would also encourage channels to actually reach out and make sure other creators are fine with them using their content in any way, which is how it should be already.
Lemino can take multiple different avenues to stop and monetize other people 'stealing' content. XQC literally HAS PERMISSION from Lemino to watch his videos. He has permission from Internet Historian to watch his videos. People are genuinely insane. If Lemino gave two shits he would copyright strike, its that simple. Somehow every angry person isn't thinking clearly about this at all and its mindboggling.
@@longbottomleaf6918 Did you miss the end of the video where ludwig shows that his only options are to strike the video and get it taken down? I mean its a solid 2-3 minutes of the video so idk how you missed it?
@@khamazon8893 did you miss the part where I said that is exactly the avenue/s he can take besides simply reaching out to XQC? Or maybe the fact that he....... hasn't.... might mean something....
@@khamazon8893 People actually pretend creators don't talk to each other at all and live in a void. People reacting to content literally brings in more views due to exposing the channel to thousands of people who otherwise wouldn't have found the channel, and people who don't go watch the original video never would have in the first place. Tiktok has ruined so many minds by degrading critical thinking.
@@longbottomleaf6918 I find your critical thinking comment funny considering your level of thinking is "More people see video = better" This isn't a TV show. Once you see that one video you have absolutely no reason to go back for more. Yeah if you saw an episode of a tv show you'd have an incentive to go seek out the rest of the show supporting that show, but with a youtube video like the one discussed in this video it was a nearly 2 hour video that took the creator nearly a year to create. So once someone watches it through xqcs video they cant watch it anymore. They'll never have the incentive to go and watch all 2 hours which would lead to increased ad revenue and an increased view count that would lead to that video gaining more traction and gaining more viewers that originally wouldn't have seen the video. I'm not well versed in the numbers of youtube ad revenue, but lets say the video has 20 ads placed throughout the entire 2 hour runtime, and now lets say 1 million people watched xqc eat food while watching the video. That is 20 million ad views that could have gone to that channel that are now gone which im sure is quite a bit of money, but as I said I am not well versed enough in youtube ad revenue to discuss the exact numbers. UA-cam views are finite, and xqcs 1 video that I would assume has at least 1 million views considering his popularity have now drained that 1 million people from a finite source, and that is just 1 channel. I'm sure there are plenty of other channels that have "reacted" to that video.
YES. 1000% times yes. I think it's crazy that musicians and those in an MCN can do this but not other content creators on the platform. Thank you so much for not only shedding light on this issue, but for also offering an actually good solution to this problem!
I saw a French UA-camr that does Domumentary "EGO" and lots of streamers reacted to he's videos, he took the streamers reaction, created a react channel and uploaded the streamers reaction to he's 2nd channel right after their reaction. Genius, and the streamers can't complain.
Lmao genius
4d chess
This is what some smaller youtuber does, like the one that ludwig reacted to, he uploaded ludwig and QT's reaction to his own channel! and he actually gets a lot of views to those compared to his original, but he still owns the views
@@mochisharvey Avghans
Ludwig could never cover drama this fluently.
So we're actually still doing this joke under every single video? It's been years at this point.
@@HostileAtHeartbro can't make jokes?
@@HostileAtHeart I'm sure your comment will make it stop
@@DJILMarioBrosMusic FAIL
Generic comment that has nothing to do with the video, lmfao
what confuses me is how when jinx was doing react content about 7-8 years ago everyone was on him and how bad it was but when streamers do it now it’s not as hated on
The example of reved was just an unlucky situation cuz the cam turned off and the mods were doind tier lists and in charge of putting videos there 😅
Honestly, until Ludwig pointed it out, I had no idea that creators did not have the option to claim monetization on stolen content. Why has this not been a feature all along? Well, I have an idea why UA-cam wouldn't necessarily want it to be a feature, money talks, but I'm surprised that not enough UA-camrs have called out the issue and had this changed.
People can keep their VODs up, and the original creator can claim the monetization they deserve on their content. It's mostly a win-win, and totally is a win-win morally.
I think the worst offender is that MCNs can and creators cannot. What a twisted, messed up system. It's there!!!! Utilize it UA-cam ffs!
Bro have you not heard of copyright claiming?
There is a feature like that? You copy claim the video of the "stolen" content and then you can chose wether you want to earn revenue from it or have that person delete it.
@@isferbaad7367 did you not watch the video? You cannot copyright claim monetization without an MCN
@@isferbaad7367 I'm well aware of copyright claims, I've been uploading videos to UA-cam for like ten years. Shit, my two most viewed videos on my channel have been copyright claimed because they're songs from an anime, one claimed monetization and one took the video down.
I just was not aware that content creators were not able to claim the monetization. It now makes a lot more sense that when I've heard of creators copyright striking other creators, it take the video down outright.
I think it’s especially rough for Xqc to have reacted to the video so soon. Typically most views and impressions for a video occur in the first week or so. It’s why copyright claiming and age restriction can be so damning because it often kills a videos place in the algorithm. If it was an older video, like the one before I think that’s pretty ok. It’s likely past it’s prime in the algorithm and that reaction is more beneficial to that video than harmful.
ehhhh, not really. There are tons of videos in my reccomended that are months or a couple years old.
@@tylerbowman4397you are a juicer your opinion does not matter kid
Part of me thinks copy right and age restrictions shouldn’t be available until 7 days after uploading.
@@badbunny371 mattered enough for you to reply to it apparently
@@tylerbowman4397your personal experience doesn’t represent reality. It’s a fact that videos get the most views and impressions in the first 24 hours after being uploaded
Someone with very few viewers absolutely CAN and SHOULD have ethics. Only having "a hundred viewers" is a pretty poor excuse. I agree this is a problem that needs to be solved at the root as you said, but if you only exercise good ethics when it's convenient that's not really having good ethics at all.
I don't think they know what "ethics" means.
honestly im just glad he's being a nice person rn even though he essentially said he wouldn't be if he weren't succesful.
Yeah, I think Ludwig may have worded it wrongly though I still understand and agree to an extent. As a smaller creator it is a very hard grind to be able to grow your channel and gain viewers, so while I don't think it gives small channels a free pass, I can agree that there might be a temptation for small channels to make reaction videos. I also think it's simply easier to become relevant that way: as a smaller creator, you don't yet have your own identity on the platform, so it would make sense (though not ethical) to use clips from something already well established, at least until the channel grows large enough to have its own identity and be recognisable in itself. I do agree that, ethically, small creators should not be exempt; but I understand it may be tempting and even advantageous to make reaction videos. I also agree it's especially important for bigger creators to be more conscious of ethics, because they have a much larger impact than a small creator.
I like the option you provided. It kind of feels like royalties in the TV industry. You made the thing, got what you could with your channel, and you can syndicate it out to reactors. You still get paid either way, but maybe some people will go your way.
You should definitely ask for permission. Im getting tired of seeing smaller, hard working creators get railroaded by these big streamers piggybacking off their hard work.
Its such a blatant example of taking advantage of folks, and the 'ill pay you in exposure' attitude some folks have is ridiculous.
they get exposure from it tho lol someone like miz got his big break from errob and t1 reacting to his vid he made on t1
the whole content game is about exposure
@@OMG-si3wn The small REAL content creators got exposure + disrespect from someone mooching off their content just cause they're bigger. Take it or leave it.
Didn't the mogul mail channel blow up from being reacted to by mizkif
@@OMG-si3wn99.999999% get nothing out of it
@@OMG-si3wn stop glazing xqc
Hey, RevedTV from Twitch here. My Cam died in the middle of the night and was turned off for 30 minutes until the mods woke me up. I'm doing a 7 days livestream (similar to your subathon that you did a while ago) so naturally I have to sleep so I put the livestream in "I'm only sleeping". So you did catch exactly those 30 minutes where i was both sleeping AND my cam was off. In the night the mods do a modcast and play videos, do tierlists, play games etc. I do get your point, but it kinda was unlucky timing imo. greetings from germany
Hiiiiii
PAUL 🐔 ER BRAUCH ESSEN
PAUL 🐔 ER BRAUCH ESSEN
algorythmus
PAUL 🐔 ER BRAUCH ESSEN
I love lemmino so much because you can tell just how much effort he puts into the quality of his videos
Oh really? What gave it away I wonder.
Great idea I can’t believe it isn’t a feature yet. Should be a partner only feature to avoid false claims. And should be able to claim %’s depending on what % of the video is “react” content, since currently companies can claim 100% even if there’s only 5 seconds of a copyrighted song or clip in a video.
The REACT channel in its prime was able to do this so well. They would get multiple people to react to content so there wouldn't be any repeating opinions or commentary, they wouldn't show the media they were react to in its entirety as incentive for viewers to seek out the original content for themselves, and they would have open discussions about the content afterwards so just watching the content wouldn't be for nothing. It was a perfect react model. if more UA-camrs (don't know about streamers) were to adopt this model, we'd be all set.
That is the worst example cuz the fine bros tried to trademark the word react and also exploited the fuck out of their cast members
@@OnoMadikvilov That’s why I said “in their prime”, ya know, before the controversy. Not sure how that takes away from what I said anyway.
Pretty sure they exploited their cast even before the trademark controversy happened. Regardless, back then I used to think it was a status symbol for creators to get that React treatment. In retrospect, those guys arguably started this whole problem in the first place, even if they were one of the better examples of reaction content.
@@naught_. I’m not suggesting anyone adopt their entire business model, just the video formula. And I don’t think it’s as much of a status symbol as most of the things being reacted to were already popular to being with. And I don’t see who they created the problem when they were the only ones doing it right.
sucks that the FineBros themselves are a bad example
They should add a thing that allows youtubers to "tag" the original videos and then the original content will be counted as also getting views depending on the views of the react channel, whether that be splitting the views evenly or percentage of views set by the original creator. adding something like this as an option so you can choose if you want your content to be used by other channels.
Edit: it doesn't have to be sorting through each copyright-able offense. It can be simple as "do you want your content to be on react channels or used in other creator content? YES OR NO?" Like just a little yes or no button and then also an advanced option button to sort through certain content creator you can disable the blockage on. Let's say a big content creator makes a good vid and doesn't want it to get used on other creators channels, but they want their fan accounts that help spread their content out to still be able to use it. They can disable the blockage on the fan account but keep on everything else they haven't listed. This would be as simple as when a creator is publishing a video, yt would do a background check on the video to make sure that no copyright content that is being blocked for use by a creator is being used. Then the react channels would just have to ask for permission at that point. all just an idea
They'd have to be careful about how it works. It sounds like people could easily get tons of views & money by just repeatedly using alts to upload the same video with slight changes so one person would be getting multiple fake views per actual view.
@@D_YellowMadnessyou could make it accessible to youtube partners only. I was thinking of such a feature for years now it just sucks that reactions work that way.
The algorithm would still favour the react channel though
@@D_YellowMadness People HAVE to see it, so you're just splitting up the views, and since it isn't like both account get 100% twice, it won't matter at all. Basically you just make it hard.
Only good thing would be if you make dope content, so every large streamer wants to react to it, you make bang buck, but isn't that completely fair and how it should be?
I hate when they don't credit the video.
Hey Lud, love this video and just wanted to add in that channels also have the ability to schedule a takedown in a week so that the reacting channel has time to remove the video and avoid a strike. I only see this as relevant because I’ve had people cite this video to me and claim that channels can only either send a notification or immediately strike a video.
Ultimately the point still stands though that creators absolutely need the ability to claim videos for monetization and/or youtube needs some updated royalty system to better support creators that make original content.
Whos Lud? This is Mogul Mail.
man i fuckin love this channel. i hope you keep this one up when you stop streaming
There is one UA-camr, a historian, called Vlogging through history who watches a lot of these videos but doesn’t just sit there idle and watches, he pauses the video every few minutes and adds extra information and context as he has read up on it beforehand and is just generally interested in the subjects that these docs like Lemmino, oversimplified etc. make. I see videos like his as ok as you get extra information not just watching the video with a dude in the corner sometimes going WOW
Yes I recently saw his reactions to LEMMiNO. He actually gives context for some things that the Original Creators may have said or adds something that they may have missed.
That still sounds like leeching, those history videos he reacts to often have heaps of effort into the art and animation, often hiring and paying teams of people to do it over several months, so to just add in a few comments in between still sounds like majority of the videos value is coming from the original creators work, and when absolutely no profit goes to that original creator and their team, then yeah that’s still unethical.
If they’re a good historian they should make competitive videos on these subjects whilst also taking the time, effort and money required to add audio-visual value if his own, instead of using another creator’s hard work (or work they personally commissioned) in the background to cheaply compensate their unwillingness to pay animators/video editors of their own or learning to do it themselves. I’ve seen very successful channels that just use a whiteboard in the absence of video editing skills, so there’s nothing stopping them striking out on their own in a low-skill presentation even if they can’t afford anything fancy yet.
Another big issue is consent and the lack of it. And again, the fact that none of the profit is split with the original channel who, by reacting to every moment of the video, now completely removes any incentive for his viewers to go watch and support the original video.
It’s just scummy when the majority of what the reactor gets engagement from their viewers from is the video they’re reacting to, not their commentary, hence, profiting off the value of another’s work.
Reaction content can be interesting, but it’s still monetary theft from the original creators.
@@Sanakudouhe does do original content, he often goes to historical sites to discuss the important events that happened there, it’s just that his reactions inevitably get more popular
Alex Moukala does that too but with Music, it's really cool!
still exploitive.
what takes more work: doing a whole video with the months it takes to make 1 video building in it from scratch or already standing on top of it and adding like 20ish mins at most of mostly 1st thoughts that u can say without much thought or effort
It’s nice that Mogul Mail allows Ludwig to react to his content.
I love how XQC tags himself in the description for the reaction videos and not the original creator
its crazy were rehashing a debate from like 2014.
Even more insidious is the content factories that don't directly steal your content as in re-upload it, but will instead make an extremely similar version that is plagiarism and a direct competitor to your own and virtually identical. Those won't show up even on the copyright page that you showed because none of the original footage was used. In those cases, creators literally have no options other than trying to start a drama or sending emails to people hoping they do the right thing and stop stealing. Or even at a minimum credit to person they ripped off. According to youtube, your only options are to watch other people make money off your hard work.
name an example
The biggest is A4, a Belarusian channel which copies MrBeast almost identically sometimes and has 46 mil @@superyeah4ever2
@@superyeah4ever2 The anime channel NCHammer 23 had this happen. He made a video about it around 2 months ago with a title of $10,000 was stolen from me. Don’t quote me on this as I’ve forgotten the gist at this point of it but a spanish UA-camr would take the content of his video and translate it to Spanish without crediting him
@@superyeah4ever2There are so many examples. Thousands across the history of UA-cam. The most popular ones now are the MrBeast clones that literally copy paste some of his videos
@@superyeah4ever2brent rivera
I always imagined a fix for streaming to be like an integrated feature for reacting. Yanno, if you wanna show a UA-cam video on your stream there'd be a dedicated tool for doing that. I envision it as like an interactable window of whatever size the streamer wants that a viewer would have to click on to actually see and hear it, and by doing so would start contributing views and watch time to the original creator.
A good idea, but doesn’t address them reuploading their reactions to youtube :/
@@SweetMeatTM im thinking more of an AI where youtube scans the video and title to see if there is enough similiarities to another video. And then just contributes the views on the reaction video to the original video, and gives the original video 'phantom' views which are added onto the prexisting view count. This may mean that the reaction video has less income and a greater proportionality of the income is given to the orginal creator of the video through some factors such as length of the original video to the reaction video.
So the reaction content still has views, but the original video has its views + the reaction content views added on, even if those people who watched the reaction video never watched the original, the views are just tallied automatically.
UA-cam has the copyright detection system, so it doesn't seem to outlandish for it to happen.
That would be so cool, and give one pretty accurate all over view count. One day, hopefully!
they got rid of the video reaction system on purpose so this would happen and drive more revenue to youtube without having to split with the original creator.
@@EmpyrealAbyss but then there would be double the amount of views for a lot of things..
I think the much more simple solution would be for youtube to count views and viewtime from react video to the original. I think a similar implementation could be done from twitch, after all, the Hearthstone streams let you click on a card to read it, which means a sync technology between what's being streamed and the stream exist
This is the best video ive seen on this issue as a whole. I hope UA-cam takes this approach
When UA-cam started notifying me of people reuploading my content, the first thing I looked for was a way to split the revenue with the person that reacted to my content rather than the only option being to simply give them a strike. I wish this was a thing! Thanks for the fantastic video on the topic, and for suggesting an amazing solution!
America
I always thought that the ability to split the revenue or take the revenue without taking the video down has been there since forever, apparently it's only available for those with MCN or for Music stuff.
Why would you split your potential revenue with thieving plagiarists? You should have more respect for your own hard work.
@@vtdemocracy7520 The options currently give you no money, I think they’d prefer to have any share of the revenue from react content of their stuff compared to no money at all.
Same
We need a system where people can opt in from reactions. I think a lot of creators would feel a lot different about react streamers if they got a cut or were able to see some analytics of everyone restreaming their content. This could even be expanded to watch parties and event costreaming
I think this would be a good idea, however taking the revenue of a reaction video that is fair use rather than free booting doesn't sit quite right with me, you know?
@@hermosas_rosasimagine taking another people content, add some commentary and claim you own 100% of the revenue. I think no matter what the original creator deserve their cut, unless it’s really transformative like the Legal Eagle video
It would be great for creators to be able to see how many other channels are "reacting" to your content and how many views they're getting compared you. Like imagine if you were receiving statistics that 80% of views related to your video were going to other channels instead of yours. You would be furious.
@@DizzyHotSauce not if you could go to an advertiser and quote those statistics. I work in an ad agency and if I knew I only had to pay for one sponsorship/ad slot to be placed across loads of different audiences and channels, that spot becomes a lot more appealing to me. I guarantee you most creators that get reacted to a lot are already mentioning this to their partners, so why not build a system around that
I don’t think the original video creator should only get a “cut” but the entire ad revenue from the video then you’ll suddenly see a dramatic drop in reaction videos once it stops being a quick cash crab
I agree with your statement that not all reactions are the same. There are some react channels that function to give insight into a situation that we may not know. Channels like Legal Eagle, Attorney Tom, and Audit the Audit are the first ones that come to mind because they explain things from a legal perspective.
At that point it's more of a commentary video. At least when I think of "react" videos, I think of some random dude sitting at their desk just saying "oh that's cool" or some hollow shit like that.
My problem with this solution is that some UA-camrs that are already big might just demonetize or have another type of income through sponsors on those videos, and prolly nothing can be resolved but with a copyright infringement notice. which comes back to the thought that even having that option might be worthless.
i never know half this garbage is happening until mogul mail posts 🙏 thank you
i care about my sanity and mental health too much to create a twitter account or go on twitter at all, thank god mogul mail ruins his mental state for us 🙏🙏🙏
thats because no one actuall gives a shit about this lol including ludwig
@@trentrhodes6327Yeah, Ludwig doesn't give a shit... but Mogul Mail does
Keep living like that, it's for the best.
Almost like it's irrelevant
The UA-cam solution Ludwig proposed here is excellent. I'd like to see that kind of change happen on the platform.
The bad one. It's youtube we are talking about
What will happen then is someone will upload your stream vods before you and claim all the revenue from your uploads which might have taken more time to upload cause you needed to edit it and stuff.
@@blueyaypeople are already able to do what you're talking about. UA-cam also sometimes thinks you're stealing from yourself when you run 2+ channels.
whos ludwig
I also think UA-cam should have a feature that detects when someone has reuploaded a video and it takes their views and adds them to the original video and they get all the benefits of those views.
something that should always be noted about fair use according to lawyers like legaleagle and other on the platform, is that it is a legal defense, not a right or protection. Fair use means nothing until you are taken to court and they make a ruling.
7:03 copyright law is intentionally vague because creativity is messy and therefore creating a fixed list of what's fair use and what isn't would be easily abused
I feel like there’s a difference between “reactors” and react UA-camrs
For instance, XQC just sits and stares at the video and essentially says nothing, but someone like Danny Gonzales or Gabbi Belle really transforms the content (Eddy Burback, Scott Cramer, Drew Gooden, etc)
yeah, especially because the long running joke of hasans chair reacting to things shouldnt be normal and isnt funny.
gabbi belle absolutely does not, but the rest of them i'll agree with.
that's why they call it commentary
@@zekerolando5140gabi belle is a great UA-camr bro
@@zekerolando5140 Wdym? She literally creates as transformative of content as Danny
Honestly this is why I like commentary UA-camrs more. They react to things but add on and make transformative content. They have skits and jokes and other points into them than just making faces at whatever they’re watching .
No shot I’d ever watch a CUT ‘The Button’ episode let alone even know what that is. However I’d never not click and love every time I see a new The Button reaction by Cody Ko. To its a 🔁, we all win, it’s frictionless.
@@MatthewMS.so frictionless
Well, reaction channels generally only use 10 minutes of an entire episode or movie and then provide commentary/review during it and after it.
So, it's not really an issue "anymore" but there are still people that show the whole thing, which.. will only get taken down anyway.
But this is mostly about content creators who get their videos reacted to, which is another can of worms.
drew gooden and danny gonzales are awesome
well if the original video gets the money then im sure they don't mind the free marketing by your favorite reactor. you and your parasocial friend can have fun in the process, and original youtuber gets the money
I’d say the system that could be placed is before uploading a video specifically react content there’s some tool that allows the react uploader to recognize the original video and can share the views to the original video. So, every viewer the reactor gets the original also gets. The original gets more views and more monetization from reacts, and if the reactor doesn’t add the original to the system it can be easier to take down or demonetized the reactor for not properly crediting the original.
Really good podcast ludwig, this really helped me with my sleep deprivation
I think it makes absolute sense that a streamer's react video monetization should go to the original creator. The streamer in this instance is double dipping with the react and the stream content they generate from it. There is no reason why an original creator should not get the whole pot or at least a cut of the streamer's reaction.
I completely agree. Especially when dealing with smaller content creators, they should be able to make money off of it, or at least gain views directly by people watching react channels so that they can make money. Hell, even an option in the corner of a react video with the ability to sub to the OG Creator's Content would be amazing. There needs to just be SOMETHING to happen to support creators who are facing issues with react channels
That's how it works with music, so why shouldn't it apply to heavily edited videos?
The problem is that music is backed by the industry, and most of the legality of it comes from the corporate greed in the music industry enforcing legal action. UA-camrs don't have legal teams fighting for rights, and youtube only cares about monetization, so youtubes algorithm will just promote what makes money.
The only way to fix this is through UA-cam. And that won't happen. So unless you want to pay for a legal team, your content will always be free to everyone.
There's no reason why everyone shouldn't be able to get to keep the views and engagements, the views and Ads should absolutely get funneled to the original content creator, but instead of one side getting fucked because of a bunch of people bitching about UA-camrs Vs streamers, everyone could keep their views and engagements, it would also get funneled to the original creator, and Ads would get put on the reaction as well as a portion of any ads ran on stream. It CAN benefit all sides. but NOOOO...people wanna Kill reaction content...Yall thought DMCAs and Adpocalypse were bad, just wait until corporations take advantage of this. Well be in a content drought unlike anything ever seen before.
WHAT ?
@@NeoLeoDynasty No one benefits apart from the streamer who stole it, GTFO
You put this situation in the best way possible, honestly props for that. I agree, UA-cam should allow channels to claim videos instead of only giving us the option to strike, but I think it should only be given to UA-cam partners and also heavily monitored in case someone starts to abuse it.
Hopefully this video gets seen by UA-cam staff and suggested to who ever decides the UA-cam updates!!
they always watch his content so yes it will be seen for sure
Yeah, considering that I'm pretty sure it's "I put this vid up first", and if it's like youtube's other copyright systems...a lot of potential for abuse
Yeah, heavily monitored ain't happening if UA-cam isn't profiting from it immediately.
@@Syndicalism An argument can be made that UA-cam would profit from this if tons of non-monetized accounts just steal and repost videos (Or react to said videos), then monetized accounts put ads on those videos, which UA-cam gets a % of. Either way, UA-cam will make money off it
Edit: Even if the accounts reposting or reacting to these videos are monetized, UA-cam still would gain money regardless of who it's from
Creators can challenge monetisation claims made by MCNs. If it's fair use they lose the monetisation rights. What you're talking about wouldn't actually be an issue
To be clear, reaction content itself as a concept isn't the issue. I can't express how much joy it brings me watching other people enjoy the same mediums and media that I do. The attraction of reaction videos is getting to re-live your first encounter with a beloved form of media through someone else. Watching someone scream at a plot twist in a reaction video to the final episode of your favorite show is just really entertaining.
As for how I view XQC's react content, yeah I tried it and he just stares, makes fun of points which he disagrees with and when a valid point is brought up, he makes it his own, rather than adding an interesting or entertaining commentary on top.
To provide a good example of a react channel, I would present Semblance Of Sanity, who create such entertaining and honest react content. Especially when they're commenting on a show with really interesting deep dives into characters, foreshadowing, etc. This, in addition to their honest reactions makes what I feel is the model reaction channel. Watching them cry at the same scene where you yourself also broke into tears is just really nice in its own way.
However for content creators reacting to UA-cam/TikTok content, yeah the line starts get quite blurry. I would say that only about 10% of reactor channels actually tell you to go sub, like and comment on the video they just reacted to, and I mean doing this unconditionally, not only on videos which they personally favor.
Feel free to discuss/argue anything I said, prefferably discuss as I'm curious to see others opinion on this subject
It seems like most of what you're talking about is in terms of what you like, instead of just the ethics. It's a tough topic. There's a lot of grey area and nuance. You also seem to be talking more about movies and shows. My natural inclination is to not really care about content taken from mega corporations, but I do think it's unfair for creators who work their ass off making original content to be competing with (and losing to) people who are just pressing play, pause, and reacting.
@@88mphDrBrown Ah yeah fair point. I was basing it more off of officially produced works such as anime and movies. I just wanted to clarify why react content is so proliferant. Though yeah with content creator works being pasted into a react video, the lines begin to blur. However to give one good of example of react content, Max0rs 'Incorrect Summary' series is reacted to by a lot of content creators, who are then invited by Max0r to voice in some of his future videos (for example ironmouse reacted to his first Elden Ring video and then voiced in his second).
@@88mphDrBrown
Not really, in my opinion.
You mention ethics with the assumption that someone who watches a react video won’t react to the original content. I feel like when people bring up the ethics of react content, they’re missing the point of why people watch react videos at all.
The main appeal of react videos doesn’t come from the content the youtuber is reacting to, but the youtuber’s reaction in itself. This is to say that no value is lost from the original media by viewing a react video; a viewer who watches a react video came for a youtuber’s commentary and- well- their reaction, /not/ to view the original content.
The mere existence of channels like PyroLive against competition like Moistcritical’s channel just prove my point; viewers will watch Critical cover a topic, then watch Pyro make an identical video an hour later, and then go and watch Mogul Mail cover the same exact online scandal. They’re not watching these videos solely to be informed; they’re watching them for the personalities on screen, and the jokes they’ll crack.
The people who watched the FineBros Teens React to FNAF videos weren’t looking to experience five nights at freddys through a UA-cam video, they just wanted to see other people enjoy their favorite media. Those who watched those videos likely already viewed the source content, and so no harm is done to the original games.
This is mostly my point; people who view react content or other “”transformative”” commentary aren’t looking to only view the source content specifically, but instead to see the youtuber’s reaction. They’ve probably already seen the original content, and just want their favorite youtuber’s perspective. Or even better; their favorite youtuber opens them up to a realm of content they’ve never seen before by reacting to some of it on screen.
Just because I watch 8bitryan watch FNAF VHS tapes doesn’t mean I’m not going to go watch them myself later. Most viewers are interested in both the source content and the reactor.
also a petty side tidbit; commentary channels like PyroLive and MogulMail aren’t reaction channels. Commentary content tends to inform the viewer and also provides the youtuber’s insight on the topic, while reaction videos tend to also offer the side-benefit of enjoying the original media too.
@@3u-n3ma_r1-c0 I literally never said anything even remotely close to "the assumption someone who watches a react video isn't going to watch the original video".
Again "the appeal" of something doesn't justify the ethics of it. I don't doubt that XQC's viewers mostly watch his channel for his presence, that doesn't justify him using any content he wants. That sort of argument is effectively "identical actions are stealing for one person, but not for another based on popularity".
I also never made an argument about "stealing views from the original creator" or particularly care about that argument. I actually think that sometimes, especially with small channels it can have the opposite effect. More concisely "sometimes react videos can net the original video more views than it would've gotten without the react video existing or not effect the view count". Again, this still doesn't justify effectively re-uploading someone else's IP without their permission. If I make a painting, your ability to print and sell my painting without my permission isn't based on how you effect my market, but solely if you have a legitimate claim to sell my work. It doesn't matter if you sold a million paintings to people who would have never bought my painting from me. It doesn't matter if I get more business/customers from the million paintings you illegally sold. That stuff might be factored into the damages of a lawsuit, but it doesn't justify using my IP without my permission in the first place.
You're also adding a "petty side tidbit" correction for something that you implied not me. I never said Mogul Mail is "react" content. I actually think "what is react content" isn't petty, but actually the most important aspect of the conversation. It seems we generally agree on the definition. I think of "react content" as what could be considered a substitution of the original media or "essentially qualifying as a re-upload, even if there's something added". The legal factors for fair use are pretty good guidelines. Most of the time "react content" is media that would qualify as "primarily entertainment". Things like "news", "politics", "debate", "societal discourse", etc. are generally areas where discourse is more important than IP.
@@3u-n3ma_r1-c0 heavily agreed, yeah that just about sums up reaction content in relation to content creators. Nicely detailed explanation
I think an option for creators to either crop out their content or claim monetization on infringing react videos would be soooo useful- it would definitely need a way to keep it from being wrongfully abused, but If implemented correctly it would make things so much easier
Theres nothing good to gain from this, but a lot to lose. I dont see the reasom to do this
I think an option for UA-cam videos that creators can turn off such as a “Allow Reacts” option that would protective streamers from copyright strikes, and also protect the original creators from people reacting to their videos when they don’t want them to. Should also be an option to see it displayed on the video (and in the feed) so people that don’t need to see the option won’t have to, and people that are planning on reacting can along with filtering to only react allowed videos.
I think the core issue with this is, it’s too exploitable. Fair use does not require permission, which is the issue so many people I think seem to be confused about.
You cannot say, “no you are just not allowed to react to this”
You don’t need anything from the creator. No permission needed. Imagine needing permission from Michael Bay before you shit on the new transformers movie lol
So I think this would intentionally or unintentionally lead to a mass amount of false strikes, as people would take this permission as… actual legal permission. You don’t need it. If you were refused it you could still make the reaction content. It would essentially be a gentleman’s agreement holding little to no water in court, but something more built upon trust.
Idk let’s give a example, remember quantumTV? Eh maybe you do maybe you don’t, long story short dude would abuse this system in a second to protect himself from criticism on his bad takes, it wouldn’t be about fair use, but hurt feelings. He was already striking down people for things that are as objectively fair use as they reasonably could be lol There were many guys like him before him, and they’ll be many more after.
Tl;Dr I think this idea is too open to abuse without much gain in comparison essentially.
Content creators shouldn't have to do anything to stop these streamers from stealing their labor. Any streamer that continues to do react content to this day is knowingly screwing over content creators and stealing labor. They are all pieces of shit.
@@garymcjerry I agree that there could be some issues with abuse here and would not necessarily suggest this as the cleanest way forward, but you're thinking about things a little too narrowly if you're looking solely at copyright law for enforceability. This kind of feature would be easy to outline guidelines for in UA-cam's TOS and enforce solely as a TOS violation--UA-cam is a private company and can make its own determination on what types of content are or are not allowed. Doesn't really need to be held up in court if the issue is whether or not UA-cam wants to continue to host a particular creator's work; they get to make that determination themselves.
@@Cren42 I think when you involve large sums of money YT TOS becomes quite moot, YT is bound to the Law in the same way every other corporation or business is. They are if anything, the mediators not the arbiters, you can take any copyright issue on YT to court, and YT will be beholden to the court’s decision. Or you can deal with it essentially “in house” which YT greatly prefers. YT could not falsely allow the claim of funds on fair use content. It happens because people don’t go to court (for obvious reasons, court sucks) but that doesn’t mean that legally it always should.
You are correct that they completely retain the right to host whatever they want, however that doesn’t equate to the right to do as they wish when it comes to financials.
UA-cam won't do that because reaction is drama. They rather ban ad-blocking and cause another adpocalypse.
Ludwid, you can if you request a CMS via your Partner Manager which gives you the same tools as a MCN or music company
First
fight me
@@EzleyCalditosecond
Lose the fight
its not ok to lock those functions to partner managers to which youtubers sell their soul. it should be basic functionality for monetized channels
@marrionezleycaldito6189 First to reply to a comment? People aside from 12 year olds already don't give a fuck about being first to comment on a video. Tf do you get from calling first on a reply thread to a comment?
@@FlowerBoyWorld nah, the average Joe shouldn't have that kind of power imho. It would open up to so many abuses. It's already a problem with people making remixes of popular songs then copyright claim as if they are the owners of the original song. Also it will be detrimental to all those people that do proper reactions that would classify as fair use.
thank you for the live mogul reaction i really enjoyed your commentary
I like the pivot of perspective with reaction content from previous videos about this. Mostly I like the idea of claiming copyright over other content that matches and based on the % matched, you get a revenue % share until it is completely transformative, so it can't be claimed. This should include not only revenue, but also impressions. I have some things I would still disagree on... Like the mentality of 'trying to make it no matter what', because just like 'getting in a world of hate' it shows that they CAN get away with it, they just gotta make it and worse - do damage to the original creator.
Honestly love this idea. Sounds fair to me to allow the original creator to gain profit off their own content being used.
Gaining the ability so you can get the monitataion of your work easily would solve a huge amount of this (so-called) drama. But also, if someone abuses this knowingly, I think he (the abuser) should get a copyright strike himself (and not get the money of course)
@@xthatkingz I agree!!
but who owns the tiktok compilations then? the person who uploads the video first? they then get to claim the money from all other tiktok compilations that use their tiktok? this just makes even more problems
@@jokem7178 we’re talking about original content. Compilations are just an accumulation of 100+ videos that also aren’t original lol. I think they just means in terms of art but I get where you’re coming from.
@@jokem7178 I think if they want to play the fair game, just credit the people who uploaded the original tiktok by simply not removing the watermarks on their videos and stuff. I don’t think that many compilation channels are getting paid like full time creators are.
This is truly one of the dramas from youtube.
Bruh don't undermine the real issue that this is
Real people with real bills get affected by this and if they lose a ton of revenue because of these reacters, that's a problem
I agree
Ye
hi
Definitely a drama of all time
Personally think UA-cam could implement a link between react videos and the subject video, where the views would directly affect the content being reacted to as well. Would also benefit from a monetization split, where in the case of xqc, half of the profits from the video would directly benefit the main creator while they also get the views on the content made. Definitely a few things to work out, but an idea nonetheless
XQC said like six things during the entire 2 hour video and was silent for the other 90% of it. You can't defend this.
wow. i love getting my daily dose of drama that has nothing to do with me and doesn't concern me in any way shape or form but I still pretend to care anyways😀
Yess sirrr me too
I had a reaction to this comment
I feel related in a personal level to this comment
Thank you for furthering the emotions evoked within me by declaring an ironic view that I too share. The internet is great!
I just need something to watch while I eat
I personally think the main moral issue with it is the lack of transformative nature, and I don't see any moral issue with it being in the "same market" or really any of the other factors as long as the video is transformative, and provides sufficient credit to the original creator. Unfortunately most big streamers, even ones like Hasan who try and add a bare minimum commentary, still fall a little short of what I'd call transformative content.
The problem is with live stream reacts, you can't know how much you'll be able to add to it, you can't cut it down to just the transformative parts
But the other side is that streams are fundamentally transient, it's not as bad as uploading a vod of it that can live forever and amass views
@@amaryllis0 I don't know if I believe that streams are in themselves transient, such as sleep streams or direct content ripping.
A streamer could pre-prepare notes and scenes before going live. Live daytime TV does this every day, so does the news. This isn't unreasonable to ask of a streamer, but if that's a concern then they could also come up with a transient premise without having to pre-watch the video. Perhaps a premise where they pause and do extra research with chat on a topic, or one where they get chat members with some input into a call to share their thoughts on the topic in the original content.
It's not our job to come up with this premise, but it would be the creator's job to actually create something new, if they want a portion of their stream to be using other people's content.
@@Tom_Hillman "Transient" just means it doesn't last forever, as in a Twitch stream can just disappear if the creator doesn't make an effort to archive it
If the only people who consume the react content are the live viewers and no one else, then it's not going to have the same effect as a reposted video, so it's harder to argue it as a moral evil
Isn't Hasan known for stretching a video for an extra hour on time of its original length?
I don't have problem with at all. However, when it comes to such things as "transformative nature" - it's impossible to define that. Also, before watching the video you are unable to determine if you can or cannot "modify" it enough to fall under that category. So yeah I think that's one of the issues with something like that.
I'm late to this but something I haven't seen discussed is that (in many cases) this can be resolved by the platform (YT/Twitch) simply crediting the views to both the reacting creator, and the original creator. There's really no reason for this functionality to not exist, aside from typical reluctance to any change that doesn't immediately make money for platforms. It would not be difficult to use something like Twitch's 'guest star' feature to serve this same function. A streamer could just enter a URL, the video is played in a smaller window, viewers on the stream are added to the video's views.
I watch reaction content sometimes (not livestreams though) because I like to see other people’s reactions to shows/videos I’ve watched, but it’s definitely annoying how a lot of channels just play it and don’t do anything
There should be a system directly from UA-cam, where you can mark your video as a reaction and link the original video. Then UA-cam should automatically split the ad revenue (maybe 20-50% for the original creator). This would be good for both.
that still feels very low
reactors shouldn't exist unless for very few cases
should be 99% of the revenue to encourage more original ideas instead of just effortless and easy "content"
@@partymix1997a large majority of the people would’ve never would’ve watched the original video tho so you have to account for that fact.
@@frankbank8720 i am personally on the line of thinking with dark viper au: even if it didn't go to that content creator it would've gone to a original one that wasn't a reaction video
@@partymix1997 its pretty naive to think that. For example so many people are watching Xqc’s content for Xqc not for whatever he’s watching, if he wasn’t reacting to a video they’d be watching him play a game instead not watching that original video that he didn’t react too. This goes for many other streamers that have a personality and a loyal fan base.
In these cases a split system would work way better because there’s still some incentive for the reactor to react to the video which would bring in probably more money then if there’s no incentive for the streamer so the content is just never reacted too and the audience never makes it to the video.
A ratio such as 60% of the revenue to the original creator and 40% to the person utilising 100% of the original content in their new video e.g. react video feels fair to me.
Idea being most of the revenue still goes to the original creator but the 2nd person who is giving exposure to the original creator still gets compensated for the exposure given and for adding transformative content.
More strict rules need to be defined and communicated out about what constitutes transformative work. That said, sniperwolf is a perfect textbook example of freebooting. She cannot be mocked enough.
There are rules out there. The issue is that every single reaction stream breaks these rules. None of these are actually transformative. It's not enough to i.e. even give 1 minute of input per 1 minute of video, you can only show what is absolutely necessary, and even if it is, you're not supposed to reproduce the entire work.
the best is when 2 youtubers go back and fourth reaction to eachothers reaction of their videos about eachother
It would help if video streaming platforms had a feature for reaction content creators to be able to apply for permission and receive an approved badge from the original creator, which can be displayed on the reaction video/stream (with a security code).
The credit and link to the original video can automatically be posted in the description, and the original creator can get a royalty for the views of the reacted video.
Because this is all done automatically on the server, it will mean videos with the badge will not get copy striked by mistake, and ones that don't have the approval badge will be more easily weeded out.
Similar to the current music credits.
as someone who watches a lot of streamer react content, i’ve always felt bad at the fact that my views aren’t going towards the original video. i feel like unedited reaction content should be banned, but editing to not include the entire original video should be allowed.
How much of the original video do you think should be allowed to stay? Genuine question.
@@spect80r around 50-60%. I think as long as the edited video still leaves value to watching the full video by itself then it's fine.
See the problem is that the parts that they would leave in is the most important part not the other more boring 40-50%
@@spect80rhonestly I don’t think it matters how much the original video is in the reaction, but I think the amount of reaction matters. While not the most liked person, Asmongold is a pretty good example imo. He turns 20 minute videos into hour long reaction videos which imo is perfectly fine.
@@pittaaaabread Also, I think it's cool when the person reacting encourages their audience to go watch the video themselves too, not just the reaction
I definitely agree with adding tools from UA-cam’s side. It’s clear that the market / demand for reaction content is there, and it won’t go away anytime soon, so original creators having a way to make money off reactions while still having the reaction content provide the service to consumers they do
There needs to be a way where you can set a collaboration split to your videos. So you create the long form content and can put a clause on it where any UA-camr can then go and react to said content but they get a certain split of your content.
To me that seems more than fair and can all be easily controlled through UA-cam. The money automatically gets sent to the original creator and the rest going to the UA-camr reacting.
Here's my take. React youtubers (or any non-live react content creators) aren't bad. React streamers are.
The vast majority of people who seek out React content on youtube do so because they've already seen the content being watched and simply want to see how others reacted to it. I can't explain why it's fun, it just is. The key takeaway here is that React content doesn't steal views from the real content because the people who watch react content have already watched the real content... *Except* when the reaction is being done live on stream. In that case the original content creator doesn't gain anything because the people aren't watching for the content but for the reactor.
Like moist critical. He pauses the video, makes a joke about it, puts background to it (so you can tell that he has a reason for watching it) and of course already watched it. Also I am only talking about his UA-cam channel not sure what he does on twitch.
A German UA-camr (RobBubble) had an interesting take on situations like these a while ago.
He argued that UA-cam should add a system where the income of reaction videos is split between the person reacting and the original video creator. This way the original creator would actually benefit from react content, while other content creators still have an incentive to react and add onto the content.
I feel like this is a good take for things like XQC's video, where he reacts to one long video. But it would get shaky for things like sniperwolfs content, or anyone who reacts to anything like short form tiktoks, movie clips, even just short compilations of yt clips. How would those be distributed? I feel like it's a good solution for some reaction content but there's still a huge reaction channel market that's left untouched by those suggested changes.
I think this works for many situations and would be overall good
However, the situation of reacting to bigoted videos to explain the bigotry/problematic views... That'd system would not work well as it's would be paying the bigot from the work of person trying to reduce bigotry. Or example, reacting to dangerous five minute crafts to explain the danger (lot of fire hazards for example), funding the corporation that is spamming UA-cam with dangerous, repetitive content. So there's these edge cases that need to be handled.
Or they should get all the money from the content they made
@@Chrischyun simple. take half the revenue from the video, split it equally between the videos she's watching.
or even easier, just ban her. she purposefully crops out the names of the videos and people who made them, to ensure you can't find them, to keep the views for herself. she's a cancer on youtube.
I feel like since they already tell you how much of your original content is being used used by others, the split could be based on that. So if someone took 50% of a video you keep ~50% of the revenue.
I feel like it'd be good if youtube could add a feature where creators could tag their videos as "reactable" or something, make it front and centre on the video so that people could see whether or not they allow people to react to their content. While algorithm changes would be preferable, being able to clearly show whether or not each creator wants you to be able to react would make the whole thing a lot nicer imo.
no hate to this idea but the reason they likely wouldn't implement this is similar to the toggle dislikes idea lud presented to susan, where it would create a sort of pressure for the creator to have this tag
@@cluckdonalds2902 yeah makes sense. It's unfortunate tho
people also don’t want to link videos to people they are arguing with, to have no easy large amounts of hateful comments to the other, this is why penguinz0 doesn’t link videos
Exactly, have it built into the system that reactors can apply for permission, and when granted permission, the approved credit is automatically properly linked in the description.
Every time you drop the streaming "persona?" and upload some content with true depth and no right answer apparent, I am consistently impressed with the fair and rational thoughts you present. I have heard you believe you will fall off eventually, everyone does, but, in my opinion, you would absolutely do well with educational videos. Specifically about the ins and outs of being/becoming/maintaining a content creator lifestyle.
It seems crazy to me that there is a large portion of UA-cam creator voices, seemingly screaming the same things (Copy-write, strikes, algorithm issues, video takedowns, the lack of support, etc.) and the issues are still the exact same. I am sure there are reasons behind it, but as a filthy casual of an observer, none of those issues will ever be apparent to me. It would be cool to see someone explain it all. I'm not saying that is for you, just looking forward to watching how you grow on the platform and enjoyed the video. Thanks for all the time and effort
Haven't heard of you since the old react drama, seeing that you changed is great. I really respect that
6:44 the fact that RevedTv’s cam was frozen for only 30 minutes there and he picked exactly these few minutes of her whole 7 days stream where her mods tried to wake her up to fix it
And the fact that she did so much of original content the whole day and then gets called out in the middle of the night
@@xdcebraxd2981 yess exactly!
@@xdcebraxd2981So? She still stole hours of content to fill up otherwise boring, irrelevant segments
@@0106johnny not really those videos where mostly just fill ins for like half an hour the rest was her mods doing Tier list, playing games or just podcasting
@@xdcebraxd2981 Then it's half an hour of stealing. Doesn't change anything. Or is it okay to steal small items from the supermarket because they're just a few bucks?
They seriously need to do something about false copyright claims. Its insane that they just allow these fake ass companies to claim random copyright free artists stuff that they have 0 rights to and then steal thousands of creators ad rev and get off without even a slap on the wrist. Would be really nice if they also would put even the smallest amount of effort into policing ads on the platform to get rid of all the blatent scams. One of the biggest reasons I just gave up on making content is all the ads that people would get on my videos where for a scam that targeted people playing the game I was playing to try to steal their email accounts (classic login scam). I couldn't even report the ad!
Main issue is that under current copyright law for the internet, these claim makers are required to have an advantage. If the person being claimed can fight back, the platform may no longer be able to exist under law.
a false copyright claim should give the person who sent the claim a copyright strike tbh
false copyright claims are still an issue? interesting...
*hey sniperwolf, my fake company has something to say to you rq*
Another thing you could do is make a claim percentage option. Like “all reaction videos to my content must give 75% of the revenue back to me” option. And the creator can choose which percentage of the revenue is given to them.
One thing about the finite amount of impressions is that that argument is not limited to UA-cam. If you are in to consume some sort of media and don't get an impression on UA-cam that translates to a view then you will most likely find it in another place like Twitch, Netflix listening to music or anything else where you would, in the hypothetical world without reactors still give that view to original, not stolen, content. So the more reactors the bigger is the chance that one of the impressions wether on UA-cam or somewhere else gets take away from original content.
Gotta love the live mogul reaction frame, really brings out the whole "News Journalist" feel this channel has
I really like how the German react bubble mostly handles reacting to videos with a lot of effort, they often wait 1-3 days so the time were a video hits the most views is covered only by the channel that put the effort in. And they mostly really try supporting the original creators
sounds really nice, everyone gets their share and is happy i presume
I really love how he chose a German UA-camr (Reved) as a bad example for playing videos because of why not, gets views right?
bin deutsch und habe den gegenteiligen Eindruck
I think it would be interesting for UA-cam to add a system where youtubers can mark their videos as "Reactable". This would be a ticking a box that is required when you upload a video, or you can set your channel such that all videos are reactable unless you specify otherwise. Then, when react channels make a react video on videos from UA-cam, they must tell UA-cam (via putting the video links in a section "reacted videos" when they upload the video, and maybe put timestamps for when these videos are being reacted to). Then, youtube can automatically add a view and equivalent watchtime to the original video when someone watches a reaction, and also give the original creator at least some of the ad revenue. The original creator would set how much of the revenue they want but by default say maybe 50% or more, something like that. if any of the videos are marked non reactable or are not disclosed, they must remove their video, delete the section where they are reacting to the video, or disclose it.
I feel like this can only be beneficial for the original creators, while still giving react channels an avenue to be react channels. I think generally if a viewer saw a video from a react channel without ever deciding to watch it themselves, they never would have seen it normally. this means that generally original creators would gain views, watchtime and revenue from react channels.
I don't know much about the market though, this is just an idea based on my limited knowledge. I can also already see some bits which will need editing or may cause some issues, but this is just something I came up with on the spot so it won't be perfect.
Pretty decent idea, maybe a lot of work to implement, but very good idea. UA-cam already has been utilizing Metadata of each video in various ways like auto creating segments, timestamps, keeping track of where we stopped watching a video by its individual video ID etc. So I don't believe it's farfetched. They have the ability to do this and make it work
Most content creators are so greedy and dumb they would not allow big streamers to react to their content while they dont realize the amount of views they could potentially get from those big reactors. nobody talks about the amount of money small creators have gained thanks to X exposure.
@@lordenvincarbecause no proof has been shown that exposure helps. Hell the fact you guys are advocating for “oh I’m just going to steal your content, don’t worry I’m paying you in exposure” says enough lol. Even during the Jayexci situation we saw that the bump in views that one video got had little to nothing to do with Hassan reacting to it.
@@kingrippzard2027 No proof that exposure helps? did you forgot the amount of games that became popular just because a few of those big youtubers started playing them? shit like fnaf thanked those same creators for making it popular. if it didnt matter why so many indie devs want those same big content creators to react or play their games??? and why are you calling it "steal content" when those type of videos were made to be seen to begin with. why create a movie if you dont want people to react to it. the real problem here is the algorithm that pushes reactions above the actual content not reacting content.
@@lordenvincar you are comparing games to videos? Really? Those are two very different mediums. Watching someone play a game and actually playing the game are two very different experiences, meanwhile if you watch the video once you are more than likely not going to watch it again. No proof whatsoever that watch other people’s content boosts their channel in a meaningful way. A video is meant to be watched correct, it’s not meant to be used to just babysit your chat while you make money from it. And it’s funny you bring up movies because streaming those without permission is hella illegal. And no, react content is still a problem. There’s plenty of lazy people like Hassan, Sssniper wolf, and XQC who add damn near nothing to it other than just gaining for themselves.
UA-cam can make a feature to have a react video in corner of an original video. That way it will give more credit to the source while you will be able to choose “with whom to watch the content”
I'm okay with some reactors as long as they're genuinely reacting. Some of my favorite content is when a specialist in a field (ex: marine biologist) reacts to ocean-related video essays or movie scenes. But I've watched some of xqc and hasan's unedited reactions and they just ... watch it. They don't add much, really. I would be fine if they would pause things and interact with their audience, or relate it back to their life, but it really just feels like they're doing nothing. And I think that's what the crux of it is
You won't see Hasan upload these reacts to his own channel is the major difference here. It's not surprising that Xqc reacts to this level, but it is suprising that he would fully upload it on his own channel. That's not to say Hasan doesn't benefit from the views on channels that are not his uploading his content because he absolutely does. The trouble there is that's just how the UA-cam algorithm works out, not necessarily to the benefit of the original creator.
@@diegomania20Hassan garbage compared to X
I don't know about xQc, but I don't think adding Hasan in here is fair. Most of his videos, especially when politics related, which is most of the time, literally double the watchtime of the og video. He's even called Pausanabi cause of how much he pauses and reacts. If fan channels are uploading videos from his stream, they get the revenue from it, not Hasan. He just supports them using his content, and doesn't get any revenue from it
Edit: Also, a lot of the non-political reacts are to his friends videos, which he has permission to watch.
@@Komorebiki Anyone who leaves the video running while they get up and go do something else is automatically in the "bad actor" category of reacts. Any genuine reactor pauses the damn video when they have to get up to piss or whatever.
@@daroaminggnome He usually keeps his headset on and pauses when hes back and says what he couldnt when he wasnt there. Doesnt matter either way if he has permission, its only an issue if the original creator doesnt think it gains them enough traction.
I actually think your idea for the monetization claims is such a good idea, since I personally really like react content and don't want to see it banned outright. While I've felt gross sometimes for enjoying it, ultimately it just boils down to me wanting other people to watch and enjoy the things I enjoy, and for someone who doesn't really have friends to share cool videos with, watching a UA-camr react to it scratches that itch a little bit (probably a bit problematically parasocial there but whatever). I've kind of seen it like let's play channels - I watch them consume content made by other people, though it is a bit more directly stealing since said content is also on UA-cam and not a game distributer. Anyway, cool idea, have a good day!
Not really parasocial unless you think you're mates with the reactor. It does make the content more interesting and that's a totally valid reason to watch it. It's like playthroughs of games, I'd rather watch someone play a story-based game than actually play it myself.
It doesn't matter what you really like or don't like. Theft is theft. Reactors should not be allowed to profit from someone else's original work while also siphoning audience exposure from that original work. The major offenders such as xQc and Hasan Piker need to be sued to set a precedent.
That was unusually healthy and reasonable for a UA-cam comment, please insult me I’m confused
well, we're in the same boat...
I have seen numerous people who make react content talk about how some videos they react to don't get monetized. I had no idea that it was only reactions where the original content was part of a MCN. UA-cam having the tools in place and severely limiting their usage is very disappointing. Expanding the tools to more people like Ludwig mentioned is by far the best solution UA-cam can make.
UA-cam should just implement a way to give a portion of views and profits to the original video and penalize if they dont. An example would be like Reddit's repost system, where while the reposter gets the upvotes on the repost, the original poster alsp gets those upvotes.
I do wonder why claiming revenue and region lock content is only for big corporations. It entirely seems like UA-cam implemented it specifically to avoid DMCA takedowns for anything they took issue with but it could be handled without the law.
A potential issue I could see is if a creator uploads a video they don't own but then claims stuff from the actual owners where it being limited to these big corporations would minimize it being misused in that specific regard. It can still be misused to claim stuff that perhaps would fall under fair use in court, at least the most common compliants from these kinds of claims.
But a way to minimize that issue is you need to be of a certain size or hand in some documentation to UA-cam so not anyone with momitization can join.
Lemmino is an absolute legend in my mind, I wish he would upload more but people stealing his content would be heart breaking for him.
Has he told you that
Its better than alot tv programs fr
@@user-lo3er3th8gIt would be heartbreaking for any content creator that puts weeks or months into their 1hr+ videos to have e-celebs only known as eating and grunting restreamers to play their content in full while raking in millions of views that gives zero incentive to the original creators that did the work.
Let’s be honest: most people that sit and watch these restreamers are not going to go out of their way to watch the video again.
@@user-lo3er3th8gi don't think it's hard to imagine that someone spending dozens, if not hundreds, maybe even THOUSANDS of hours on a video, spending a year on it, would be a little upset that someone just plastered their face on that work and made even more money from it than they did
A great example I wish Ludwig talked about is Daily Dose of Internet. He strives off content he gathers, but because of the credit he gives and the hurdles he makes sure to clear he can be successful without worry
Daily dose of internet is chill
even daily dose recently released a stat on how talentless parasites steal his content and reupload them for monetization
Not transformative enough, he basically just describes the video. I guess it could be good for blind people but it’s pretty clear that’s not the purpose of the channel.
@elizabuga4337 at least he get permission, get the OK from the owner or something similar for the content
don’t people send in their own videos for daily dose?
The platforms hold the power to fix this. Especially in this era of prolific data tracking. One possible solution:
CC-A makes an original video, CC-B makes a react video of it.
CC-A gets a notice that their content is being used. CC-B gets a warning they are using CC-A's video. The platform, knowing the full picture, can easily track aggregate engagement, impressions, views etc between both creators, and can distribute a revenue share for each creator involved but a MUCH higher proportion goes to the original creator.
That way if CC-A is the bigger influencer, they get paid as expected and smaller CC-B benefits from the boosted total views.
If CC-B is the larger influencer, it won't punish CC-A for making OG content AND CC-A benefits from boosted views of their original work.
Over time if either CC grew larger than the other, the distribution would rebalance itself accordingly. Same goes for if 1000 CCs reacted to CC-A, the original creator benefits the most.
Now think about this from the broader copyright spectrum - music, TV, film, automatic content recognition. Imagine a no-name musician gaining good income because attention on a platform by a big creator / company amplified their revenue. It would no longer be about stopping others from using your work via claims (with exceptions of course) but about managing the constant ebb and flow of attention. Even the idea of royalties could be totally transformed in this way. The meme about getting paid with 'exposure' could almost be a beneficial thing 🤣
You didn't sin, that was Ludwig you're Mogul Mail