Are Reaction Videos Ethical?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Ethi-call your mom, she loves you and she's worried.
Watch the full WAN Show: • I'm A Short King - WAN...
► GET MERCH: lttstore.com
► AFFILIATES, SPONSORS & REFERRALS: lmg.gg/lcsponsors
► PODCAST GEAR: lmg.gg/podcast...
► SUPPORT US ON FLOATPLANE: www.floatplane...
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL
---------------------------------------------------
Twitter: / linustech
Facebook: / linustech
Instagram: / linustech
TikTok: / linustech
Twitch: / linustech
The Clips Channel does well because people are more likely to watch a video about one topic they are interested in AND they can comment about the one topic below the video without worrying about it getting lost in comments about the whole WAN show.
yes. Even when watching the full show, I usually wait for the timestamps and just go through topics I am interested in and skip the rest.
Well said. This is why I prefer 20-30 minute videos in general, and especially when time is limited.
asmongold is the worst thief, all he does is react.
Also it works better internationally because of timezones...
Also, you know what they're going to be talking about before you click on the video. With the full WAN show, the title only shows one of their topics, so you have to start the video, find the timestamps guy in the comments, read all of the timestamps for what they talk about and manually skip through with them to watch what you're interested in. Or you can just wait for the clips channel to upload the single topics that you personally care about.
21:50 it's because watching clips is easier than the whole LAN show. I often run a clip to watch during a meal or procrastinate for a few minutes and having 10-30 minutes epised give me a much better idea how much time I'll spend watching it, whereas on a 3.5 hours video I might sink for longer than I wanted to. Honestly I'm not sure if I ever watched any WAN show entirely as a one video, but I'm watching almost every clip you upload here from it
Well said! The time management aspect is a big one for me as well.
I actually just download it on my phone and listen to it like a podcast while I'm working
I will watch the entire show if they have a mega topic or something, but I'll watch the clips that interest me. I used to leave the show on the second monitor and watch it Monday morning, but the clips work just as well and I get to skip the boring stuff.
I like multi hour content I can listen to while working. But I can see how someone who is watching in their spare time, wouldn't want to sink in so many hours.
One of my favourite UA-camrs is Rick Beato who does incredibly detailed analysis of popular music. His videos are absolutely transformative, he only plays snippets of the original songs (played by himself) and he goes into the musical theory behind them. By any sane definition this is fair use yet Rick doesn't even bother to try and get ad revenue for any of his videos because they will be flagged. Worse still some of his best videos have been blocked by the original music owners despite the fact that Ricks videos are love letters to the songs and would make anyone want to go and listen to the original track.
if he does what you're describing it's not react content. it's another thing. react content is people staring at a video while the video is playing and maybe throwing in one or 2 words sometimes.
@@MrA6060 check teeaboo, he will do what you describe and then speak for 1 hour or os about it, all out of 1 20m episode, 100% valid reaction content, and mainly what it should be.
I remember awhile back it was discussed that certain UA-camrs were being targeted by music labels. I think Rick Beato is one of them. The crazy thing is that Rick Beato has connections in the music industry.
There are several in the music reaction scene actually analyzing and diving pretty deep into the stuff they react to (TankTheTech, Elizabeth/TheCharismaticVoice and Michael Palmisano immediately come to my mind), and several artists have openly praised them for what they do and collaborated with them in interviews, livestreams and actually in providing content for them to react to.
So the reaction scene in itself is a spectrum too.
yeah but even lazy react content is still widely beneficial to the music scene. whereas pretty much every other art form, react content is mostly theft especially for people on the platform whose entire identity revolves around being a reactor
I've been watching so many WAN clips that I've decided I'll just start watching the whole thing. The nice thing about the clips is that they chunk up the show to sprinkle into a variety of videos being watched throughout a session. I think it's good that both are offered
@lovegaming4114 sure bud
Helps with millennial attention spans as well. I've watch LMG videos for many, many years including WAN show, but as I grow older, it's harder for me as an adult to sit down for that long to watch it even though I want to, there's just not enough hours in the day. These clips make me feel like I get more done. Every new video I click on has a renewed attention span lease per se.
@Love Gaming stop replying with spam and if you think your computer is actually in trouble, get some anti-virus and/or go post your issue on the Forum.
@@happinessiskey2858 They are probably just a bot but I'll agree that its really annoying lol
I really want to watch it too. Too bad it's at like 5 AM for me
When it comes to reaction channels, i always wanted a website which displays a reaction video, and the original video, and sync them with timestamps in the description. This would allow ads and give views to the original, but a system like that would probably not work.
There's also "watch along" reacts, where they only embed about the first minute of the original so you can sync up the original video with their react, and everyone watching along plays the original video as well.
In the metal music scene some react channels have really been embraced, getting early access to music videos to be able to do simultaneous releases.
I recognize that this is a niche case, since music videos are released to promote the artist. They're not really made to make money, so all views are equally valuable.
But this topic is complicated. React videos really balance on the edge of legality
I just came from a reaction video to Ren's 'Hi Ren'. He's an unsigned artist and therefore youtube is likely a more significant part of his income than for a signed artist (at least that's what I expect despite being truly clueless on it). But Ren has been active in the comments of most of the reaction videos i've seen, and has, I believe, even made a list of each of the reactors that have covered him on his own website to promote them.
The release of that particular song by Ren is the first time I've really wanted to watch react videos (it had significant impact on me personally and I wanted to see how others took it too), but the whole phenomenon is still kind of bizarre to me. It is certainly of dubious legality, and now I don't really know if it would be to the benefit of specifically musicians to get rid of them altogether. A few weeks ago, I would have said they rarely offer value to anyone, now I just don't know if that's true.
@@rikiba851 the legality in many cases is dubious at best. But the actual law doesn't really matter, what matters is what the copyright holders want.
A number of music reacters do offer added value to the viewing though. Equipment used, song technique, composing patterns.
Then there's the shared emotional experience too. Emotions do amplify similar emotions.
@@Irthex Yeah, the added value is definitely there for some music reactors i've seen. The one i watched earlier was Michael Palmisano, and I came away from it with a small lesson about diminished thirds, and a book recommendation. With others, the shared emotional experience is exactly what I got, and wanted.
Watching reactions to the ending of Lorna Shore’s ‘into the hellfire’ is brilliant.
Reacting to music is a bit different than reacting to a video content, since music is more replayable
I was glad when ya'll finally made LMG Clips, because I don't have to sit through a 3 hour live stream to get the one nugget I found interesting or relevant. a 3-30 minute video on a single topic is much easier to digest. Not that I have any issues with long form content or the WAN show itself, but Clips just makes it easier to get to that one thing.
The main reason why I watch react videos is because of my music taste. None of my friends enjoy the shit I listen to so when I watch react videos, it's like I'm watching a friend listen to a song I showed them. When reacters enjoy something I enjoy, it makes me happy
I had this idea that probably is very stupid, but you guys tell me what you think about it: what if the original videos used by the react videos were embedded in the react video they show up in, kinda like a video playing within a video. This way, the original copyright owner would be getting views and potentially revenue from the react videos that use it. The react channels could choose which clips of the original video they wanted in their video, and when the original should be paused, for example, to explain a comment they make or something. These adjustments would be done in an editing software directly on UA-cam. I do, however, foresee some problems with this method: the sync of ads - both videos would have to play ads simultaneously, and maybe the distribution of the ad revenue could be a little tricky. Besides, there's also a problem if the react channel links a copy of the original video instead, which there are tons, depending on the popularity of the video. Idk, it was just a silly idea I had while watching this, I don't know if something similar already exists or if there's some impossibility that prevents it from existing that I'm not seeing.
I dunno, that sounds like effort.
Which these reaction channels don't like.
@@SparrowwithaMachinegun Yeah, I could definitely see some channels not wanting to do it, mostly because it requires some effort from them and also because they would need to divide revenues with the original copyright owner (which they, currently, don't), but if it was done to avoid legal confrontation between 2 parties, then I could see it being beneficial. But then again, if the original video creators are small parties, then there's just no incentive for the reaction channels to comply (since small creators don't have the means to engage in legal actions against reaction channels), unless UA-cam took serious actions to prevent this blatant use of copyrighted material under a supposed "fair use" to take place, which I'm not seeing it happen any time soon.
The issue with this idea is that it blurs the line between a fair reaction video and a video response. If the line is too tight on seeing the length of the video, then react channels will cut small parts and make off with the revenue. If the line is too loose, then channels which are video responses to other channels content would be flagged as reactionary content when they clearly aren't.
Another oversight of this idea is content that is not available on UA-cam, such as TV shows or movies, that sometimes people react to and that could not be linked to, since it's not on UA-cam to begin with.
@@alderstifen7738 Yup, that surely is an issue too, but it's still preferable that the original creator gets some revenue this way, rather than nothing at all (or much less than they could be getting, because there are some reaction videos that instigate people to go watch the full video).
Apart from the "fair use" issues, I feel that the only react content that could be considered actually good is a creator "reacting" or more accurately "commenting/analyzing" aspects of content related to their personal skills or fields.
For example, a lawyer reacting to and commenting on legal things in both media and the news (ala LegalEagle) is decent react content,
while a couple of random dudes just emotionally reacting to anime episodes without even constructively commenting on it is trash react content and a plague on the youtube landscape.
Linus should go commentary tracks to some of his videos, like the thinking about retiring one. Not only would it be fun to hear him squirm watching some of these, but also hear him break down these with his thought process then and perspective now
youtube will soon implement that soon once their multi-language audio system works out
One of the reasons I watch the Clips channel even though I watch the WAN show a lot is to see comments about the specific parts of the show
I must admit that I quite like watching some music reaction videos or movie reaction videos. Quite a lot of my friends do not enjoy some of the same music or films I like. I like seeing someone else's take on music and films I like and here their opinion. Basically like reading a review on such media, but you get to see the effect on the person reacting to it also. Also I get to relive films I liked from many years ago (sometimes from my childhood) without having to take time out to watch the full film. I also get to see or hear some stuff I never thought I would like and go on to discover more from that band etc. leading me to seek out and purchase albums. I don't understand reacting to another UA-cam creators content as I may as well just go watch that creator.
"Pretty much it" does this pretty well I think. They have audio commentary that you can play along side your own copy of a movie. There youtube videos also included clips of there commentary alongside the clips footage of the movie (definitely fair use, edited down, not a full replacement to the movie etc..)
One of the things I’ve noticed is that a lot of people mistake that “is this commercial” standard to mean “if I don’t make money on this, then it’s Fair Use”.
I’ve seen this a lot particularly in communities like Club Penguin, in which people seem convinced that the reason Rewritten was illegal was because they decided to start making money off of it.
What people don’t realize is that you can make zero money off your infringing work, and it’s still illegal.
I think if you are reacting live on twitch with no editing then it shouldn't fall under fair use. It is not possible to transform the content while eating your delivered fast food or while you are gone to the washroom. The rare exceptions do exist if you are pausing and analyzing the video though.
A few of the Twitch channels I watch said they feel uncomfortable if they don't pause and at least try to make commentary on it. Also, plugging the original video is a big help. I recently saw a random channel 10x in subs because their video was watched and the video linked in the description and shouted out.
@@Matkatamiba Pausing a video occasionally is very weak justification. Sure it makes them feel better, but it's not going to make all the stolen money and views go to the original creator. Just because you stole a thousand dollars, an insignificant feel-good donation to charity won't make it any less of a crime. And subscribers don't matter. I'm subscribed to a hundred channels that I don't get a single recommendation from, because I don't watch their videos actively.
@@Matkatamiba Do you remember The channel name?
@@Creepus_Explodus you can point out how pausing in lieu of fair use is weak justification but you cant also deny how traffic and discoverability works on the web. You can make the anecdote of not coming back to channels you sub to, but your experience wouldnt reflect the rest or all of users especially for example from mainly twitch to yt. I pesonally wouldnt have cared for a lot of topics / channels have i not been exposed to them through twitch or other third parties, im sure there are others who reflect my sentiments as with yours but you cant just deny third party exposure exists or subs dont matter - if youre content is good, people will keep coming back, even the chance for that happening is worth something and even smaller creators struggle to get. I feel the system could be cleaned up and just on a by youtube platform basis you can make embedding / react parties have more of a designated system than just a dm / claim here type thing (this is obviously an oversimplified approach to a problem id say is more complex than youre making, but while i dont hold the answers i mean to not say there arent problems on both sides and there needs to be clearer standards / a change in the system). On a by etiquette basis (for now, should be the norm tbh), i think creators need to make it clear who made the video and link to it.
@@itsyeaboi5333 If it really worked that way, then react channels wouldn't grow. They would die out as their audience goes on to watch the original creators. This is clearly not the case, as the top "reactors" on Twitch are constantly growing, showing that the viewers would rather watch along with somebody eating in the corner, than to seek out the original content. If you actually cared about the video being watched, wouldn't you want to watch it undisturbed on your own?
Yes, you pick up topics that you like, that's how humans work. You can't like something without first being exposed to it, and these "reactors" act as content curators. A tiny fraction of people will actually seek out the source and explore beyond what is shown on stream. But the vast majority will sit in chat, and tell the streamer to watch the new video uploaded by a channel, rather than watching it on their own.
But again, you can't justify theft with an insignificant donation. The "reactor" gets the views, they get the paid subscriptions and donations, and they gain the long-term audience. The original creator gets a tiny fraction of the viewers who either had the decency of giving something back, or were genuinely interested enough to seek out their content instead of being in their favourite zero-effort streamer's chat.
You get pissed when a large corporation steals from their workers and their customers. Is the parasocial relationship with the hopes of your favourite streamer noticing you in chat enough justification for the same theft? These streamers steal from the original creator and exploit their audience for donations - all while doing no work whatsoever.
TBH, UA-cam should probably have an easy solution for the copyright claim. Allow rights holder to mark the part that contains the copyrighted material.
There needs to be a way of linking such that watching the reaction also counts as watching the original content. Perhaps the original video only plays in a separate but imbedded window. The video can be from any source such as UA-cam, Twitch or Netflix which the viewer needs to log into to see. The react video could contain a syncing function that controls pausing and timestamp jumping of the original content, but would otherwise just be the reaction itself.
This is the ideal solution. I remember there being a website a few years ago that did this for watch-a-longs on Netflix. The viewer of the stream had to login to their Netflix account and it would do picture-in-picture video that was synced with the host.
This is is still not enough because it still steals the subs of the original creator
@@wolfbad512 I can think of a couple of things to do about that. Maybe they could have a system that autosubs you after you have viewed a certain amount of their content. Alternatively, have the sub button list the original creator first.
You could also reverse my imbedded video idea so that you can only view reactions from the original video page.
@@pcnoad I still don't like the idea of reactors profiting a lot from other ppl works in every other situation where ppl put the entire video in their own video they copyrighted but here you are trying to find a way to let them keep making lazy content that will always hurt the one reacted to
@@wolfbad512 If you paid attention to my original post I specifically proposed not having the original content within the reaction video. The reaction video would only be the reaction itself. The video being reacted to would have to be viewed from it's source. My last proposal required you to watch the original video from the source page with reactions as side content.
I understand that you may not find value in reaction content, but a lot of people do. It's interesting to see various perspectives. I've watched a lot of reaction videos to movies I own. It's like reliving the movie for the first time all over again. I agree that reaction videos should never be a market substitute. I just think why not find a technological solution rather than ban something people enjoy.
If we want to talk about the effort put in and how much it's worth, all I can say is that I can't control how much others choose to spend on that kind of content. I have yet to pay anyone for a reaction, but evidently some people do. Ultimately that's up to the market to decide that. Why not automatically have a portion of the money made by the reactor go to original content creator?
I've never watched the full wan show videos, but UA-cam always offers the clips to me on a silver platter and I watch every single one of them. It's not that I'm averse to long-form content, I just never even see the full version in my feed.
One major issue I've seen with react content is from big Twitch streamers. And it's not even necessarily their fault, people will clip an entire segment of their VODs where they reacted to stuff and then upload the whole unedited segment to a separate channel that isn't even associated with said streamer.
So the content thief gets his content stolen by another content thief. 😂
@@4m4n40 exactly
I think the key to clips is that it's focused on a topic, it's about 20 minutes long, it's not as engaging as a full blown video (which is good for, say, doing the laundry, playing a chill game) and you get to hear knowledgable people talking about that topic you're interested in.
The exact issues you talked about in this clip struck a major chord with me from the standpoint of new Minecraft modding UA-cam. Yes both of these issues on the surface have no obvious connection but when you look close at new Minecraft modding videos it follows a standard format. Using a single mod for a video that is very eye catching and intresting make the video and then at no point say the offical mod name or provide any way for viewers to get to the mod(s) used. This gives the UA-camr a massive benefit while basically kicking mod developers in the shins because viewer traffic isnt directed anywhere. In some cases ive had to do hour long research projects just to figure out why mod they could be using because they make it so unbelievably hard to tell. As a mod developer it has to be one of the most punishing brutal things to happen forced to watch your mod blow up beyond your dreams and no one having any idea that they can easily get it.
In that case, Aren't announcement videos ( like the announcement presentation of the rtx 4090 ) reaction videos?
Especially when details are really lacking? Like the specs of the unlauncehed 4080?
About the clips channel, I love watching the WAN show, but it's not always that I have the time to watch the whole thing. Sometimes you will talk about something on a Wan show that peeks my interest, but since I didn't watch it I didn't know you talked about it, the clips channel let me know that you talked about it and watch it in a manageable chunck of time, so I love it
To be fair... I'd would love to see the react of anyone on LTT to movies like Hackers or Swordfish. That would be amazing.
as far as music reaction channels, I think it's actually beneficial for music of artist to have these reaction channels up. they expose a lot of music to people who may have not have found them before and promote the band. these reaction channels are the same as MTV to ten count down and album review shows that not only help the artist but help reach a larger audience. this is the new MTV/Radio that needed to happen.
Only one thing to add. The channels that do the analysis and breakdowns are good. I've seen channels that sit through songs or just make some generic "whoa"/"no way" remarks just to breakup the video.
Doesn't really matter if it's beneficial to the original creator. If they don't want it then it's up to them.
MTV stopped showing music videos because the recording industry wanted MTV to pay them, instead of the recording industry paying them to show music. MTV ceased to exist as a "Music" channel in 1998.
The problem with react content is that the recording industry wants you to pay them for even having the audacity to have music on your channel, and it flies in the face of how people actually use music. A youtube channel is not a radio station, and people are not going to use it as a replacement for listening to the music on like itunes, unless that music isn't available to begin with due to incompetent licensing by the recording industry.
@@hop-skip-ouch8798 yea there are clearly 2 different types of those music reactions there are the lazy ones that are fake as fuck (like some 50 year old being like "listening to michael jacksons thriller for the first time") and then i've seen some kid listen to full hiphop albums with his dad and after each track talk a bit
I usually do a musician interview, then create a playlist with some of their songs and the interview placed towards the middle. Not a massive driver of views, but I think it strikes a good balance.
6:37 I would semi disagree here. It just depends on how often someone interjects. The reason I say this is I mod for a channel that will react to the whole video (leaving in sponsor spots even if the chat gets upset every time) and they react so much that it can take them like an hour to get through a 5 minute video. To the point that some in the chat complain he isn’t just playing the video. Which he responses you are here to watch my reaction to a chosen content. If you want to go watch the video, go watch the video.
So I think there is a case for it still being fair use even if it uses 99-100% of the original work. It just depends what’s added. Pacing is a big part of a good video and a streamer doing a lot of proper reactions to it can ruin it to the point people will later go watch the original work. If you are just laughing here and there or leave the video playing while you go to the bathroom…yeah that’s not fair use.
Also I love the idea of say the original creator being able to set how much they deserve from someone else’s use of their content. There could even be an option for negotiations. Since losing some revenue from a video is better than losing all of it.
if not for reaction content i would have missed a few bands i now listen to all the time
17:20 - there's a clear definitional difference between reacting to submitted content which is agreed that you will react to vs reacting to publicly available content.
I have a counterexample.
Harry Mack makes some amazing videos. However, one of the most interesting things, for me at least, is seeing how people react to seeing him for the first time, even in his own videos.
So, his videos are react-videos to himself and other youtubers react to him, which adds to my interest in his videos. He's apparently very cool about react videos, but I thought this was a different perspective.
Also, as a viewer, the draw of react videos is to have "a buddy" in the room chatting with you as you watch something. It's like director commentary, and that's something youtube could facilitate... like a mystery science theatre frame around the video or picture in picture with merged audio... both videos get credit, etc.
Would recommend watch Jay Exci's video on Hasanabi's react content.
The megastreamers really shouldn't be able to react to people's content for free. Streamers on 1mill+ a year should have staff that contact the youtubers, agree on a price, and then show it.
These streamers make 10s of thousands of dollars in a 10 hour stream & 1 hour of that is youtube reaction content. that money should go to the people they're reacting to. with the original creator's consent.
lol
The problem lies entirely on UA-cam for allowing this in the first place. They could have a functionality to link the original video you're reacting to and views and part of the revenue goes to the original creator. If you don't link the video, your account could get strikes. This way, react channels would contribute to the original creator and improve the whole situation. This is an issue create by UA-cam because they did nothing to fix it.
I still have a post up for UA-cam from 2013.
I suggested them adding a button to the video - the button was "React" - when clicking on that button you would be able to make a video of you reaction to the content, any click on your react video would also count as view for the video you reacted to.
The react button settings are controlled by the owner of the video. The owner can define the split in revenue so the reactor can decide if it's worth their time.
I'm still waiting UA-cam, I'm still waiting.
There are some content creators that frequently do reaction content and add a lot to it. and they've exposed me to channels i would never have found otherwise.
Honestly the most sensible solution to me would be to make it kinda "official"
I can think of a system where the reaction video is played in parallel to the original, etc.
But that doesn't make it a reaction video. That is a "watch this video along with me" video.
@@sjokomelk what?
@@gytux0258 Watching you watching another video in full length is not a reaction video. That is a viewing party. A reaction video can use small snippets from original content, but not the entire thing. And you need to bring something new to the table. Like Corridor Crew that discusses how some of the CGI is created in movies. They don't sit on their couch watching an entire movie without adding anything.
I love the clips channel because I can listen to the podcast and easily skip segments that I'm not interested in without having to skim through manually.
7:19 there is actually a middle ground for revenue sharing, a lot of my Beatles covers have a ad split with the rights holders.
Reaction videos where they give active commentary and respond to the video are fine in my opinion, they serve the same purpose as watching someone play a scary game, we like to see how people react to given subjects and their opinions of it,
Mfs who just eat a pickle and watch a video are the worst, there’s nothing to watch,
Basically a reaction video is more about the person reacting, weather they scream or get sick or just say it’s stupid and talk about it
My simple view is that I don't have a lot of time to look for new channels to watch and react content helps solve this issue.
If I find someone who I like who reacts to videos, there is going to be a certain guarentee of quality without me needing to vet the content.
Quite a few channels I watch now were found via someone else reacting to their content
"Are reaction videos ethical?"
No.
I never watch the WAN show but have found myself watching more and more LMG Clips. I see the titles and click what interests me. One episode may cover some things I like and some I don't. Clips is purely my interest.
“Try Not To Laugh: Worst Hacking Scenes In Movies”
50% of the Reactors income should go to the original Video creator. That was a solution hugely discussed in Germany a few years ago. But UA-cam ignored it so nothing happened.
I don't think 50% is even enough, for most reactions it should be close to 95% to make it even remotely fare, which would make react channels unviable. The worst part of reaction channels is not the impact on the creator they are reacting to, but to the whole youtube market
@@amrosk but isnt 95% quiet a lot if you contribute to the original? Like a expert react to
@@itsdarkos I'm saying this in relation to those "insightless" lazy reactions, if you are doing a transformative use, of the bare minimum of the original content then you shouldn't have to pay at all, as it is fare use. A revenue split only make sense for reactions that don't fall under fare use, in that case it should be up to the original creator to set how much or opt out of such system. I said 95% just to illustrate that for a video that took, let's say two weeks to be made, a 50/50 split would be extremely unfair if all the other part do is give minimum commentary over it.
@@amrosk Ohh yes i see. your right
Reacting to community submissions is reaction content, but a completely different type.
WAN Show timestamps does not have an ending to it while watching WAN Clips have ending. You don't know if the topic is finished or not unless you check timestamp again.
Checking every WAN Shows stamps to find topics that i want to see is a hassle. It is easier to just see a WAN Clips video with a tittle. You know what will you see and it has definite ending to it. Also seeing 10 minutes videos is more comfortable than seeing 3 hours videos.
Atleast those are my opinions on why i like seeing WAN Clips than WAN Shows.
I'd listen to full WAN show if you guys released just the audio somewhere. Why in the absolute fuck do I have to load a video in order to experience the primarily audio based content? Yes I know I can just extract the audio with yt-dlp or something, but why should I have to?
Small claims court works well for those without much money. Low upfront cost and works really well for stopping these. I've gone that route a few times.
clip channel is one of the greatest thing ltt has done
The other thing about clips is that I know what the whole thing is about before I start the video, where as with the WAN show, I don't know everything you are going to talk about, and there is a lot of stuff that I just don't care about. However, I'll see a clip about "Are Reaction Videos Ethical" and I think I wonder what they have to say about this specific thing.
Interesting how controversial react content is now. Miss the good ol' days of video responses that YT dropped in 2013. Maybe it is time to bring it back?
Dude i cannot commit to the full wan show. So much more digestible here
HIGHLY reccomend Jay Exci's and Darkviper AU's videos on react content. The twitch streamers doing it are especially disgusting
lol
To let you know how broken the UA-cam copyright system is, a few months ago I made a video about a murder that is captured in a song. I play a few seconds of the song in my video. Initially I got an algorithm generated claim until it was released after review. Recently I made a #short of that video and I immediately received a algorithm generated copyright claim on the short. From my original longer video. 🤦🏻♂️
Josh Strife Hayes has been talking about this for a couple months, and really digging into the details of it.
What you do to combat reactors is to do long form content and live streams so they have to store and download fuck tons of data.
depends on the added content, on yt theres a podcast called every frame a pause, or efap and they are able to react to a 10 minute video for like 4 hours
My only issue with reaction videos are those that are basically sitting there watching…or just nodding their head while looking at the camera
I really like reaction content for two reasons, even though it gets a bad rap. I like it for mindless watching when I don't have the energy to think about what I'm watching and I also find myself sometimes searching for reactions on specific things if I'm curious how someone else reacted to something that got me excited.
I think reaction videos can be interesting and fair if whoever's reacting is an expert of the content being reacted to. For example, SailorVince watching Internet Historian's 'Cost of Concordia'.
Well... given how UA-cam smashed in the amount of ads for the wan show (I'm watching on safari, where there's no Adblock), the unknown of topics available that day of the wan show (as opposed to the clear topic of the clip channel), and the inability to get 2-3hrs of free time uninterrupted to listen to your wan show, uhhhh yeah, clip channel is my go to instead of the full wan show.
Also yeah, I'm hating the ads so much I'm debating going back to chrome (got served 5-7 ads just watching this clip: 1 at beginning, 1 at the end, 5 between), and the amount of repeating ads is driving me crazy
What makes react content so successful is the fact that it validates the viewer. People want to see other people appreciate the things they find good because it validates their opinion.
Proper react content, by my own definition, is where the audience is expected to have already seen the original work and is sharing in the experience of watching someone else see it for the first time.
If what you're reacting to is new to both you AND your audience, I would not consider it to be react content.
UA-cam feature request:
I don't know how the logistics of this would work but I think it would be a cool feature for UA-cam if you could get a live Picture-In-Picture of other UA-cam videos overlayed over your video when doing reaction content. It would effectively work the same way as playing two videos simultaneously.
This would behave as if the viewer is watching the original video just with the person reacting with full remote control of it. (You would be able to use UA-cam editing features to pause, play and skip to timestamps.)
This would mean anyone watching the react content would be giving actual view statistics to the original video.
As far as Ads go, if either the original or react video start rolling ads, the whole thing is paused for the ad to play. Depending on which video the ad was triggered, that video would get the revenue.
Why not have a technology where you can embed a video in your video and share the cloud and rev-share on play time. Music videos would get the plays, smaller creators will get the plays... I am guessing duetting works in that direction
I follow a historian whose reaction videos are more than a reaction. It's like the og video is a textbook and he's using it as a spring board. He adds a lot of info. I think there are circumstances where reactions are beneficial but there are numerous reaction channels that don't add anything.
19:03 that’s such a good idea because god damn. The .bats are crazyyyy
I think someone who does reaction videos fairly well are the sidemen. They tend to either react to their own content/edits that their team put together, or videos that have multiple parts which funnels viewers who found that video interesting to watch the other videos in the series on the original channel such as daily dose of internet.
daily does of internet posts mostly memes or 10 seconds of interesting video with random author who doesn't really make anything from posting this video online (except for maybe likes). While someone like let's say internet historian, does 1 video per year and would like to get his time back in money, it's his job.
Someone like xqc does 10h of sitting and watching documentary videos with real work behind them (and memes) and posting it on youtube without chaning anything, like cutting video to only include portions where he adds something from himself. For penguinzo does it and it doesn't take away reason to watch video which he reacted to from viewers.
Also multi-part videos are almost always watched by streamer in the same stream, or as soon as it comes out, so why should stream viewer go watch said series by himself when he could watch youtube's video reaction alternative with same content
just cut the parts where you do nothing you lazy mf
@@MKKL1 yeah most streamers usually don’t add much to content they usually are just reacting to fill hours of their obligated stream time.
I watch the clips over the full stream due to time constraints, and not being able to see the full list of topics in the title (not your fault, I'm too lazy too look through the description)
DarkViperAU has covered parasitic react content (by big time channels) many times now- and has the UA-cam data to show that is always hurts the content creator. Why? Because that big time react channel ends up in the recommended list for that video instead of the original video. And after watching the react channel of the video they are shown more react content by that channel versus more by the original creator. It's EXTREMELY parasitic, and could kill off actual original content creators as everybody rushes to do easy money react content. If a channel "blew up" after being covered by a parasitic large react channel, it was going to blow up anyways.. though I am sure there are a very few anomalies to that (but also hard to prove they would not become more successful without the parasite react channel coverage).
14:10 - Rob Dyrdek had a show on MTV... A clip show... And they would find the original "artist" that created a meme that had gone viral, or were the subject of said meme. Some sort of meme redemption thing he did. That was cool. It gave a voice back to the person in a light hearted and humble way. I still think fondly of Rob and the work I saw him doing on TV.
The dark side is how people nowadays are trying to create accidents and disasters to film; in attempts to create memes or otherwise generate social influence. I was being stalked by phone wielding creeps. Some guy calling himself "Blaze" was stalking people for a while. What's worse is when those people modify the video and audio to create false narratives. Defamation hidden in the guise of "content creation." I never agreed to be filmed for anyone to profit or deliver a message. I'll talk to people in person, or post photographs with text. Being filmed in a business, so someone can post that online for personal gain? That's messed up. But, corporations have paved the way for "consumer data collection." If Amazon can listen in on my private life in my home, and generate product recommendations from that... even if the products fit my needs... It's a subversion of my free will. It is coercion by subversion imo.
The problems are being resolved slowly and surely. It just takes a lot of extra work to push back the tide of "thirst traps" that can be used and abused like any garden tool (an axe used to clear felled trees vs. an axe used to invade a private residence).
Reacting to a video is worthless. ANALYSIS of a video, on the other hand, can be very interesting and educational
I'd be less harsh on reaction-only (e.g. those with no interwoven discussion) if they showed just their reaction and asked the viewer to watch the video in sync in a separate tab. UA-cam could help by providing this as a feature in the app. The original uploader gets the views, the reaction channel (however lazy) gets the views, UA-cam gets double the views. Win/Win/Win?
I kinda miss the wan show that starts late and linus and luke having trouble setting up the show and having them figuring out how to fix it.:)
So I watch clips instead of wan show cause most times I can’t watch a few hours at once (even though I mainly just listen rather than watch) and smaller clips make it easier for me to watch. I can look and go “oh that’s just 10 mins and I have time now while I do xyz” or
“Oh that’s 20+ mins I can listen to that later when I’m driving or doing ect” just makes it easier to parse up. Also not saying wan show is like this but reason I usually don’t do livestreams is that there are large sections where your talking to the comments and if your not there to read the convo it’s hard to keep up your good about reading out what your replying too but most don’t seem to do it so I just make it a rule not to watch already streamed live streams.
I believe that large creators like Asmongold, who often does reaction videos, have a positive impact on the content creator community by introducing their audience to new creators through their reaction videos. For example, I personally enjoy watching Asmongold's reaction videos more than any other content he creates, and if it weren't for him, I may have never discovered the original creators or their content. Although some may view this as low-budget content, I argue that it serves as a valuable way for creators to gain exposure and for audiences to discover new content. Additionally, Asmongold often gives shout-outs to the original creators, which further helps them gain visibility. -- On the other hand, there are content creators who simply rip off other creators' content and add nothing of value, such as humor or original commentary, to it. These creators do not bring any significant value to the creators' community, and do not help to promote new or original content. They simply take someone else's work and post it as their own, without giving credit or shout-outs to the original creators. This type of content creation is not only unfair to the original creators but also does not provide any benefit to the audience. Such creators do not have a positive impact on the content creator community, and instead, they only contribute to the devaluation of original content.
Sometimes people cite fair use as the basis for doing things that are allowed by other parts of (US, anyway) copyright law, like format shifting (for example, ripping a CD to mp3 files to play on your phone or other device). Actual fair use cases tend to be less clear cut.
What if I had a proxy device to watch the ads for me and I had ad block on my actual device?
I start my mornings out on a schedule so I can stay productive during the work day. One of those time blocks I have is eating breakfast and watching tech news, but I've only given myself 30 minutes for both of those things. Having WAN show in bite sized sections allows me to catch up on it through the week and skipping the content that I'm not as interested in. A clips channel is perfect for us short-form content consumers.
7:45 I had a lot of backlash after I copyright claimed when Donut Media used a bunch of my clips uncredited
honestly i feel like reaction content is justifiable if the creator adds a lot to the content, and if it does not seek to be discriminative towards the original creator.
I don't want to have to scroll through a multi hour livestream even if it's timestamped. I admit this next reason is a phycological quirk but I hate feeling like my schedule is mandated by when I can view something. I even hate the premier function that youtube has added because it makes my anxiety riddled brain thinks that I am somehow missing out simply because my life/work schedule doesn't allow me to view the video at launch. A video I can just watch, whenever I get to it, and it will cover the piece that I care to know about at the time, is much better for me.
PS. When writing a youtube comment youtube marks youtube spelled with only lowercase with a red underline, and if you right click to correct it it makes the Y and T uppercase. Yes I know it is a name and so the Y at least should probably be uppercase, but I will forever use only lowercase youtube intentionally because it amuses me.
Oh shoot, this makes more than the actual WAN Show?!?!
Color me impressed
"Reacting to bad computer listings." Greg Salazar has entered the chat.
There shoud be a system where u can tag clips or videos whit your videos like in shorts bec in some shorts bottom right there is a song they used in the short and you can see what shorts use that video and if u view a vid that has em tagged when the video is watched it adds a view to the clip
7:10 that's not true, there's a way to share some percent of ad revenue if someone copyright claims a portion of the video
I could see a way for youtube to promote the ethical reactioning by having a feature, where the reactor would not include the video they are reacting to, but instead youtube would open two videos (possibly as a picture in picture in fullscreen), synced them and counted the views for both the reactor and the original content. That way both the reactor and the OC would get the view and at the same time, the original content creator could flag videos for "not to be reacted to".
Reaction content I consume is content I'm highly unlikely to watch in a standalone form.
I think Linus is right and Luke is right about the "react" thing. The internet has tainted the meaning of that word, when someone says "reaction channel", the first thing that comes to my mind is "stealing videos from other creators and pretending to react to the videos". In a strict sense, reacting to PC set ups is very much a react content.
21:50: Me, watching on LMG clips.
LMG clips is one of my favorite channels, and I didn't listen to the WAN show before it. Kudos!
I watch more clips than the actual show just cuz there funny or Informative Content but most the time I don't have time to sit down for the whole show!! Love the channel and LTT
I would only rewatch specific segment of wan after watching the entire show.
Basically just a recap or something
Solution: UA-cam lets you direct link to a video. Any views on the reaction video count towards the original, and ad revenue is split. You can then have separate likes and dislikes on both videos depending on the content. Maybe you want to like the reaction because it calls out some bullshit from the original, so you can like the reaction and dislike the original. This way nobody has to go out of their way to find the original, as the original gets the benefits as well.
"Hot" take but I think XQC is one of the worst offenders of this. There are literally thousands of creators that do this, but he has by far the biggest reach out of all of them and he never actually adds anything to the content (and I say all of this as a fan). At least he always lets the in-video ads play all the way through though. If he only did this on stream I would be more okay with it, but having a channel that is dedicated to essentially re-uploading other creator's whole videos with the occasional "NO WAY DUDE" is just shitty behavior from someone that really isn't in dire need of that ad revenue
Sounds like a Remix ability? Where you can properly credit someone else’s work and split revenue and properly add views to their side of the algorithm? They could also implement a live feature of this, and make it so you can only properly credit a youtube video when you are live on UA-cam itself, then BOOM 90% of twitch streamers content can only be done on UA-cam.
Edit: and much like how the community frowns upon people copyright striking, maybe the community starts to frown upon creators who DON’T do this new revenue split feature.
You're a corporate lawyer now?.
Linus, if you really wanna get into the weeds about "react" definitionally, WAN Show is a react channel, we watch to see/hear your reaction the week's news just as much as (if not more than) we do to hear the news in the first place.
Weird tangential thought incoming. Someone could totally host a news aggregate channel who's videos are just Microsoft Sam covering a headline and 3 sentences of context for the week's tech news items, every week, and it'd probably get millions of subscribers.
I watch the clips because its selective, i watch the topics im interested in
I prefer LMG Clips because I've only been able to join 2 WAN Show streams and I think it's weird to watch VODs. For me, a streaming experience is meant to be live so watching it after the fact just seems off somehow. I'm usually watching, or more like listening, to clips while cleaning or doing laundry. Tasks that normally don't take more than 30 minutes.
There are good reaction channels though. The ones that make the video 3 times longer than the original. Pause it and discuss it, elaborate it. Plus I've found plenty of good creator via them. Linus looks like he doesn't know them, has probably just glanced to a few and made up his mind.
I guess, you could apply the same rules of writhing a paper or thesis. List all the original sources, (call them out where you use them) but most importantly have an own inside and original idea that you want to share. If not..... it's just a copy.
22:54 love to hear the plug for timestamp guy
Omg this video has more advertising than the length of the content