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.
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
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.
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.
LEMMiNO is honestly one of my favourite RUclipsrs, 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.
@@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)_/¯
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
@@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.
"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.
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.
RUclips 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
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.
@@ZxFncs 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...
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 RUclips (he rules imo
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 RUclips should easily be able to do this with no issue internally
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.
@@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
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 RUclips wouldn't necessarily want it to be a feature, money talks, but I'm surprised that not enough RUclipsrs 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.
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 I'm well aware of copyright claims, I've been uploading videos to RUclips 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.
In Germany we had a few RUclipsrs 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 RUclips. One of those RUclipsrs 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 RUclips 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 RUclips. 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 RUclips implementing some sort of horrible policy. Twitch and RUclips seem very skilled at making the worst decisions possible. I think it would be better for react content to stay as is than have RUclips 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 RUclips, the public is mostly on his side. Even Hasan was admitting in his recent discussion with Ethan that RUclips 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.
I saw a French RUclipsr 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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
@@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
When RUclips 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!
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.
@@Special_Agent_NSB 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.
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!
There is one RUclipsr, 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
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
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.
@@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 RUclipsr 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 RUclips. The most popular ones now are the MrBeast clones that literally copy paste some of his videos
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. RUclips also sometimes thinks you're stealing from yourself when you run 2+ channels.
I also think RUclips 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.
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 RUclipsrs (don't know about streamers) were to adopt this model, we'd be all set.
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.
I always imagined a fix for streaming to be like an integrated feature for reacting. Yanno, if you wanna show a RUclips 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.
@@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. RUclips has the copyright detection system, so it doesn't seem to outlandish for it to happen.
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.
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. RUclips 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.
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.
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 🙏🙏🙏
that's how it starts. "a lil phil defranco is fine, youtube won't become an addiction. it won't be a repeat of facebook" yeah here I am, unable to game, read, do chores. Only by the grace of a comment ban can I be set free, but alas I am only given a day and it is becoming increasingly difficult to get banned without actually saying anything mean. calling people cracker doesn't work anymore. you're a cracker, I'm bullying you. see? it doesn't work, they want my sweet sweet engagement but it's slowly sapping my soul.
You put this situation in the best way possible, honestly props for that. I agree, RUclips should allow channels to claim videos instead of only giving us the option to strike, but I think it should only be given to RUclips partners and also heavily monitored in case someone starts to abuse it. Hopefully this video gets seen by RUclips staff and suggested to who ever decides the RUclips updates!!
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
@@Syndicalism An argument can be made that RUclips 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 RUclips gets a % of. Either way, RUclips will make money off it Edit: Even if the accounts reposting or reacting to these videos are monetized, RUclips 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
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.
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.
Honestly this is why I like commentary RUclipsrs 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.
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.
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 feel like there’s a difference between “reactors” and react RUclipsrs 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)
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)
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.
In my country this people is called “ leach” since the content required so little effort and you gain money from it But there’s also a level of leach as well
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. RUclipsrs 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 RUclips. 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 RUclipsrs 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.
I think an option for RUclips 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 RUclips's TOS and enforce solely as a TOS violation--RUclips 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 RUclips 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.
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😀
I definitely agree with adding tools from RUclips’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
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 RUclipsr 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 RUclips 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.
My stance on reaction content is that it's best if the reaction feels more like a commentary than it does just rewatching the video with some random person in the corner. Pausing the video, giving your own thoughts on the topic, adding your own unique perspective, especially if you're already familiar with the topic. It's the sign of a good reaction video if it's either significantly shorter (meaning they cut out the dead air and only focus on the parts where they provide input, like MoistCritikal does) or significantly longer (meaning they provide extensive input on the full video) than the original work being reacted to.
@@Doom1491 But they STILL shouldn't be acceptable forms of commentary. The reason for this is due to the fact that he still streams the video in its entirety to thousands of people. If he made a video of himself breaking down the infrastructure of a video point by point, then there would be no issue, but he's still taking someone else's content.
@@AllThingsEntertaining if you are constantly pauses and talking about the video, discussing it and stuff, you are transforming the content. people arent watching for the original video, they are watching for the discussion and your take on it.
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
@@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?
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 RUclips 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
A German RUclipsr (RobBubble) had an interesting take on situations like these a while ago. He argued that RUclips 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 RUclips with dangerous, repetitive content. So there's these edge cases that need to be handled.
@@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.
Generally I don't have much of a problem with streamers and youtubers to reacting to tiktoks and memes, since it's short-form and lends itself to be more transformative through comedy. But with long-form, in my opinion the way streamers can react to them is to, like Lud said: 1. Either get permission from the original creator, or react to someone's videos that you know are chill about it. 2. Be as transformative as you can, don't just watch it and be silent the whole time. 3. Shoutout the creator whenever possible and direct viewership to their channel. 4. Don't reupload your reaction to RUclips separately, keep it limited to the VOD.
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
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.
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'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 RUclips algorithm works out, not necessarily to the benefit of the original creator.
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 RUclipsr 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 RUclips 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.
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. RUclips 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 RUclips can make.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
There should be a system directly from RUclips, where you can mark your video as a reaction and link the original video. Then RUclips 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"
@@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.
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
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.
@@معراج-ل4بIt 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.
@@معراج-ل4بi 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
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
@@danukendi8852 ...It's exactly as it says. It's not RUclips's problem, it's the problem of the law; It also cannot be said about any rules, because copyright law is a very specific field of law that is very complex, but ultimately takes part in various socio-economical problems, because it has to do with the system being primarily there to facilitate big companies abusing it, rather than for its supposed purpose of protecting others' original works. If you see the video itself, you might understand it better, but long story short, the copyright law itself is made to be abused and to take advantage of others, and it only happens to protect original works sometimes.
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 RUclips 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
I honestly think these kinds of effortless reaction videos are unjustifiable unless the reactor gets explicit permission from the video creator to react on stream like this. Hasan and xQc are the worst offenders, and 99% of their reactions is them not even looking at the screen or saying anything, or even leaving for extended periods of time as the video is playing. Blatant theft.
People usually complain about Hasan pausing and talking too much throughout the video. He is constantly taking 20 min videos and turning them into an hour+ reaction. He gives plenty of commentary/opinions.
@@christiehamilton5785 he doesn't add anything of value though, just because you pause, and ramble for 10 minutes doesn't mean it should be considered transformative. Maybe if he did his react videos would get views even close to someone like asmon or even xqc
@@christiehamilton5785 yes hasan does this most of the time but there are times where he doesnt do this. hasan should at least put some effort so that he gives good commentary all the time, not most of the time. also he needs to pause the videos while he steps away. if he had done this since the very beginning, he could have potentially saved himself from most of the criticism he receives from doing react content, including the empty chair meme lol
I'm glad you put forth the call to action at the end there. Also I think it would be cool if youtube implemented a "watch party" for youtube content so you can watch yt videos synced with viewers and the views go towards the original creator.
That would be insane because an average youtube video you like is very likely not actually owned by who you think the creator is. RUclips can never and will never do this. Spotify has the ability to do this, they can do this (and copyright isnt a problem then), but even then there are so many issues that people like you cant see.
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 RUclips channel not sure what he does on twitch.
Uncut reactions are the equivalent of screenshotting a tweet instead of quote-retweeting. One gets a stat boost and is directly linked to the original and the other has absolutely no benefit to the original whatsoever. If the original and reaction were directly linked and shared view stats and revenue appropriately there wouldn't be an issue. Still waiting on RUclips to add revenue sharing based on amount of content used and not just 100% or nothing. That being said, reactions are so often terrible quality and there would be much less of an issue if they tried editing even slightly. That XQC reaction doesn't need to be that long, a couple short clips tops would have sufficed. When people look for reaction videos it's more often than not to see their reaction to a specific moment and not the entire thing, dead air and all. But XQC doesn't actually make anything, his entire life and career is to just be an attention machine for profit, as is Twitch's entire business model.
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.
Adding onto that point, if a creator claims monetization of a reupload of their work, their channel icon and link should automatically show up in the description of the video, like what happens when you play a video game on a youtube video and youtube automatically detects and labels which game you're playing. This would help creators grow their communities and reap the rewards of their work.
@@abhikrajan8904 he made that channel a couple of months ago tho , it didn't even exist when he was talking about that stuff so where are you getting that from?
well when you compare react content to someone spiking a drink in a club you shouldnt be surprised when people call you out for that regardless of what you have to say about the ethics of react content
I wish RUclips would do a revenue sharing system for react content because even if it transformative it is built off of someone else so both should get a piece of the pie
That wouldn't work. xqc and hasan reacts first in a stream, so youtube probably wouldn't be able to count those views. Also, views don't just generate revenue, it also boosts its visibility, which means it could be used to get more views.
@@xaf15001 simple solution, just ban them from the streaming websites. they don't add anything anyways. xqc is just a leech, and hasan actively promotes racism, violence, hate, and disinformation, things others keep getting banned for (especially when they aren't actually doing any of that).
There used to be a reaction channel I really enjoyed that would cut out sections or videos where he didn’t have actual reactions. That ended up cutting out probably half the videos encouraging people to go back and watch what they missed.
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.
This problem is so simples to solve: just ask for permission to react. That's all. Some creators will allow, and cherish the exposure, others wont. The problem lies on the fact that they simply steal the content, and upload with their face plastered on 10% on the screen.
no, that wouldn't solve anything. The amount of messages large creators get is already massive. Even if they have 'people' they don't want to answer these messages all year. And big companies like Disney and Sony would never answer that. I've heard from some reactors that the tried ask permission beforehand and mostly didn't get an answer. And we're talking about big streamers here, not every 500 subscriber RUclipsr. When you factor in that there are millions of people streaming on Twitch and an ocean of reactors on RUclips and they should ask for every single reaction? That doesnt't seem to be realistic. And if you think, just only react when you get a permission, then you'd kill reacting all together. Just don't allow it anymore, that's much simpler.
@@BoredMarcus It's simpler than that. Let the creators choose a setting "Opt-In for React" or "Opt-Out for React" option and anyone that reacts to an "Opt-Out for React" content gets a strike (maybe not a Copyright Strike, but another system). And they could make it easy for big streamers by just having a setting to filter for this type of content.
@@Mr_Noteworthy This is better solution since some people would want the exposure. There is no reason reaction videos shouldn't be a thing if the owner/creator of intellectual property is indifferent or even wants the exposure to their content and theyre okay with it. No way at that point is it unethical.
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.
Yeah I'm not a fan of the practice. It only takes a little thought to go, hmm does this feel fine to take someone else's hard work and sit there and make very few comments or even just make noises? In my eyes it's not really ethical.
If only people were actually able to read instead of watching Charlies bad video on the topic that completely misrepresented the point DarkViperAU was trying to make
@@MewdoNah, Charlie's video didn't misrepresent DVAU's screed. His points were bad and he made them poorly. Content creation is not a zero sum game and never will be. STREAMING is a zero sum game because they are actively competing with each other for a shared time slot, but RUclips is not. One doesn't take away from another. I - and many others - care about good content. Rarely does another person's opinion matter for the original content and if it's good, I'll seek it out. Charlie's videos introduced me to Gabi Belle, Chad Chad, and Ordinary Sausage. It's possible that I would have discovered them on my own, but the quality of content was the draw. Not the reaction. The content itself.
@@evey0259 Charlies video definetly mispresented the topic, but it definetly didnt help that DVAU made a response video where he was emotionally loaded, which is understandable since he is passionate about the topic. The most agregious thing in Charlies video back then was the whole thing about the analogy DVAU used. Many people just focused on the analogy which was horribly misrepresented on Charlies part and clowned on DVAU because of it. Also DVAU made an extremely good video a month ago in which he responds to the video of Gabi Belle which is absolutely horrible.
@@evey0259 Maybe you had issues understanding the essay because if you actually knew what was written you couldn't possibly say that Charlie didn't misrepresent Darkvipers points..
@@Mewdo If you were accused of being no better than a sexual predator, wouldn't you have a similar response? Everyone will set the bar immediately below themselves, and after DVAU's video, a fair few of the streamers that were called out or engaged with it DID change their practices. That's not to say that the quality of the content increased exponentially, but if they are taking the steps to improve how it's presented, reacted to, and how much input they put on their part, then there's not much more that can be done until there's a policy change on RUclips's part. Honestly, I've heard enough from him. I never liked his content, and didn't agree with his points or how he presented them. I thought Gabi Belle's video was spot on and consider her representation of viewers of RUclips, not Twitch viewers to be a much more honest and realistic assessment of how things actually are. That could be because I simply don't like streaming as a format, but if impressions are the name of the game, the effect would be felt on RUclips, not Twitch. Concurrent viewership on a live stream will almost always pale in comparison to views on RUclips.
But Ludwig, the masses are dumb and they don't know how to process complex content without someone telling them how to feel about it! We need famous people to tell us what to do and feel!
If SSSniperWolf doesn't explain exactly what is happening and being said, several times, while shouting over the video, how could I possibly understand what was happening in the video!!?! /s
You both are annoying, if you actually watched the lemmino video you'd see it's highly likely US propaganda. He never actually talks about why there's many reasons JFKs assassination was staged, the biggest being the killer himself. He's a self proclaimed Marxist, his only credited claim for that is reading das capital. This "Marxist" then for some reason wants to kill the most left wing president the US has ever had? Anti war, pro peace, pro women's rights, pro civil rights, pro union, anti mc carthyism. Why would any leftists ever do this?? Imagine today, a socialist killing Bernie Sanders while he runs for 2024. Is that not sus to you?
Adding to the point on punishing false copyright claims - there should be a strike system similar to what’s in place, so channels can’t go and claim as much as they can even though they’re all false
If it were available, would you prefer to claim 100% monetisation on a video using your content, or would you like the option to select a percentage of monetisation if the work was somewhat ‘transformative’? E.g. have the ability to select that you’re claiming 75% and then the other creator is given a 25% share because they did add a little extra content on top of yours.
that can't be done in good faith without a third (neutral) party. pretty much nothing can be done to be honest without a third party. otherwise you have a repeat of copyright strikes. the reality is that these problems stem from a more root problem: there is no legislation forcing these sites to review or moderate their content. almost 100% of the unhealthy problems that stem from these sites are rooted in the bottomline. maximising profits, minimising costs. moderation was a cost with no profit, so they cut it.
Imo, I think setting a percentage would be good. Asmongold for example, frequently takes a 10 minute video and turning it into a 30 minute reaction. So maybe claiming that 10 minutes would be cool.
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
The issue is sheer ammounts of videos reaction channels can put just by cutting 30 mins out of their full streams can be never competed by original creators that actually put weeks or even months into their videos. This just sets a bad precedent to newer streamers that creating something original will never be as rewarded as just eating and watching breaking bad on kick will.
I think darkviper's main point is more so that react content is exploitative, rather than simply "stealing views", but it is both. Reactors are taking videos with sometimes weeks or months of work put into them and sitting there watching it in 30 minutes in full with no transformative changes. It's impossible for someone who puts time and effort into their craft to compete for views against people who simply steal work and can output 30 times more "content". Also the evidence that react content brings views to creators is dubious, with most videos only pulling a couple hundred views at most after a big reaction, while tens of thousands of people now have a reason to never watch the original content. React content is so low effort and high quantity that it can over saturate the market. Your solution idea of shifting monetization to original creators seems like it would at least help mitigate the damage, and if people were able to do it frequently it would disincentivize re uploading so many entire works unaltered to youtube. I also believe creators have the full right to strike channels and feel little to no remorse about it if people are stealing their entire works. Even as a burgeoning streamer you aren't entitled to stealing people's work just to prop yourself up, but wagging our fingers and hurling insults does way less than demonetizing and algorithmically disincentivizing the problem.
Claiming monetisation doesn’t solve the impressions lost from the react video existing in the first place, so I guess it would be “claim revenue split = how much video played AND add % of impressions from the react video to the original Also is funny to read people being like “asmongold is the perfect example of good react content” and I’m just sat here like 😐 all he does is the same as sssniperwolf at best
@@meirl5700 I mean... asmon isnt the perfect example. But the guy is able to turn a 10 min vid to 30 min one. He puts in 5% more effort than sssssniperwolf
Lud I know you're relatively new to RUclips but they tried this years ago, basically it gave financial teeth to the current copyright system and they had people claiming videos for copyright that had seconds of their content causing the videos monetization to go into limbo until it was resolved.
what if you could only claim the percentage of your footage used. so your video made up 50% of the content that could be the max claim. and add in additional feature where you can adjust the scale.
No, Ludwig is fully correct. Creators that are not part of a MCN have never had to ability to just claim monetization for themselves. People that were and still abusing the system to steal monetization are setting up fake music uploads to claim a whole video as theirs for having the soundbite.
The problem with this feature is someone can upload your content before you upload it and claim the profits. Like someone can 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.
@@jacewhite8540 Very hard to make that legally solid. RUclips can only operate the way it does because it doesn't interfere with uploaded content but only gives the users the tools to do so
It is interesting and frustrating that copyright claiming and geoblocking are not avaliable for all creators. Now that I know this, it is definitely on YT to do the simplest solution of just allowing this to verified people (or some other system to prevent scammers/abusers)
People would just abuse the system if they had access to it. Similar to how a lot of MCN's falsely strike videos all the time, content creators are gonna be much worse with it.
@@jellytwins1018 it should be on youtube to regulate the misuse of it. Escrow, reviews and severe punishments is plenty to discourage and stop people from trying to abuse it. "people will abuse it" shouldn't be an excuse for a feature like that.
Great suggestion. I agree 100% that this is the best way to do it. I do think reactions can help the creator being reacted to though, and if at all possible I think there should be a way to maybe set a percentage split as well. So Lemmino for example could just have a setting on their channel saying, "You're free to react and reupload my content for 90% of the videos revenue.", or some other number he chooses. A smaller creator could set it to be free to react to them, and be happy with the eyeballs maybe. Seems like a fairly simple thing to implement.
Another example of a channel making a video reacting to copywritten material in a truly transformative and useful way is Cinema Therapy. They "Technically" are reacting because they're watching a movie or show or episode of something; but the majority of it is small clips just long enough to give context or use as an example or thing to springboard into a deep topic, while the majority of it is good indepth psychological and cinematic explanations and breakdowns from a psychologist and a movie director/cinematographer. It's really amazing content, and as a result of having indepth and nuanced videos and topics or takes its not really... as huge or as seen as it should be but thats besides the point. The reactions where someones just... staring watching the video, giving a chuckle or say five words in 10 minutes, are just... disgusting and sad. :\ It's becoming a necessity for newer creators much like Ludwig said, its seen as a "If I dont do this I wont grow or make it, because everyone else is." It's painfully similar to why bodybuilders or powerlifters inevitably turn to steroids in their sport because... everyone else at the top is doing not only steroids but unimaginable amounts; so if they dont the passion and love they have for it, the thing they want will just... have 0 chance.
As a fan of well reacted videos, I personally seek out reaction of something I already consumed and enjoyed, to see how other people react to it. Its the same effect of laughing at a funny video and showing it to your friend so you can laugh along again with them.
reacts can be good for both parties if the reactor makes a good effort to push their audience to the original creator. Just opening the video, and closing it without mentioning the channel or linking it is scummy
exactly, people talk about adding insightful commentary when reacting, but I really like watching streamers have fun while they watch something, or finding it interesting with me... it's that thing, it's like watching something with a friend, I think it's silly to think this is not as good as original content
Here's what I would consider to be the perfect solution. Have REACT channels pick older content rather than newer content to react to. XQC could've picked one of Lemmino's older videos, said something like "if you enjoy this person's content then here are the links you need to follow them" and leave it at that. REACT content should be used to boost other creators, not to steal food from their plate. Also, REACT channels should avoid covering the same creators multiple times, just to be chill.
at the end of the day people will do things with the best incentives. the viewer demand drives people to make react content on current news/topics. there are people who do cover older content but that is a completely different category of reacting, as the whole point of covering new content is to take/siphon views related to that content at the height of its popularity. there is no godly power that can force people to do any of the things you mention without a shift in the incentive system overall (which is ludwig's proposal). people need to stop with the idea of asking creators or streamers to "be chill". it would be chill if mcd gave me free fries every 3rd order but that will never happen. as long as people will pay and there are no penalties, the business will produce. any large streamer/creator with a platform is a business and the decisions they make are based on market demand, not moral value.
LEMMiNO deserves all the revenue and publicity as possible. the raw amount of hours and effort that goes into his videos the past few years has been unmatched, seeing anyone but him profiting off his work doesn't feel remotely morally correct.
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
A bigger problem is that RUclips 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
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
LEMMiNO is honestly one of my favourite RUclipsrs, 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.
@@HalfCensed 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)_/¯
@@HalfCensed I would be pretty pissed if someone got 400k views out of my hard work without paying me a penny.
@@ziwuri Thats fair
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.
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 RUclips comment section.
@@nonpondo_ difference is?
"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.
RUclips 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.
@@ZxFncspeople like watching react content. Whether or not it's easy to make or "good" it's popular. We need to deal with this
@@ZxFncs 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...
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 RUclips (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 RUclips 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
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 RUclips wouldn't necessarily want it to be a feature, money talks, but I'm surprised that not enough RUclipsrs 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 RUclips 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 RUclips 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.
In Germany we had a few RUclipsrs 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 RUclips. One of those RUclipsrs 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 RUclips 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 RUclips. 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 RUclips implementing some sort of horrible policy. Twitch and RUclips seem very skilled at making the worst decisions possible. I think it would be better for react content to stay as is than have RUclips 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 RUclips, the public is mostly on his side. Even Hasan was admitting in his recent discussion with Ethan that RUclips 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.
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
@@dj07677 FAIL
Generic comment that has nothing to do with the video, lmfao
I saw a French RUclipsr 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
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
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.
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.
@@plinkclearsyou 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
When RUclips 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.
@@Special_Agent_NSB 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
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!
It’s nice that Mogul Mail allows Ludwig to react to his content.
There is one RUclipsr, 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
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 RUclipsr 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 RUclips. The most popular ones now are the MrBeast clones that literally copy paste some of his videos
@@superyeah4ever2brent rivera
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.
The RUclips 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. RUclips also sometimes thinks you're stealing from yourself when you run 2+ channels.
whos ludwig
I also think RUclips 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.
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 RUclipsrs (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
I always imagined a fix for streaming to be like an integrated feature for reacting. Yanno, if you wanna show a RUclips 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.
RUclips 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.
@@WorthyTrike but then there would be double the amount of views for a lot of things..
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. RUclips 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.
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
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 🙏🙏🙏
that's how it starts. "a lil phil defranco is fine, youtube won't become an addiction. it won't be a repeat of facebook" yeah here I am, unable to game, read, do chores. Only by the grace of a comment ban can I be set free, but alas I am only given a day and it is becoming increasingly difficult to get banned without actually saying anything mean. calling people cracker doesn't work anymore. you're a cracker, I'm bullying you. see? it doesn't work, they want my sweet sweet engagement but it's slowly sapping my soul.
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.
You put this situation in the best way possible, honestly props for that. I agree, RUclips should allow channels to claim videos instead of only giving us the option to strike, but I think it should only be given to RUclips partners and also heavily monitored in case someone starts to abuse it.
Hopefully this video gets seen by RUclips staff and suggested to who ever decides the RUclips 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 RUclips isn't profiting from it immediately.
@@Syndicalism An argument can be made that RUclips 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 RUclips gets a % of. Either way, RUclips will make money off it
Edit: Even if the accounts reposting or reacting to these videos are monetized, RUclips 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
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.
Honestly this is why I like commentary RUclipsrs 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.
@@matthew.m.stevickso 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 feel like there’s a difference between “reactors” and react RUclipsrs
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)
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 RUclipsr bro
@@zekerolando5140 Wdym? She literally creates as transformative of content as Danny
@@littleguy27832 EXACTLY
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.
In my country this people is called “ leach” since the content required so little effort and you gain money from it
But there’s also a level of leach as well
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. RUclipsrs 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 RUclips. 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 RUclipsrs 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
I think an option for RUclips 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 RUclips's TOS and enforce solely as a TOS violation--RUclips 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 RUclips 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.
RUclips won't do that because reaction is drama. They rather ban ad-blocking and cause another adpocalypse.
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
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.
Gotta love the live mogul reaction frame, really brings out the whole "News Journalist" feel this channel has
I definitely agree with adding tools from RUclips’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
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 RUclipsr 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 RUclips 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.
My stance on reaction content is that it's best if the reaction feels more like a commentary than it does just rewatching the video with some random person in the corner. Pausing the video, giving your own thoughts on the topic, adding your own unique perspective, especially if you're already familiar with the topic. It's the sign of a good reaction video if it's either significantly shorter (meaning they cut out the dead air and only focus on the parts where they provide input, like MoistCritikal does) or significantly longer (meaning they provide extensive input on the full video) than the original work being reacted to.
i completely agree
Asmongold has always wyld takes on stuff, so most of the time his reacts are also double or triple the length as the video he reacted to
@@Doom1491 But they STILL shouldn't be acceptable forms of commentary. The reason for this is due to the fact that he still streams the video in its entirety to thousands of people. If he made a video of himself breaking down the infrastructure of a video point by point, then there would be no issue, but he's still taking someone else's content.
@@AllThingsEntertaining if you are constantly pauses and talking about the video, discussing it and stuff, you are transforming the content. people arent watching for the original video, they are watching for the discussion and your take on it.
@@Evelyn80264 Which they could easily do without livestreaming it.
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?
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 RUclips 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
A German RUclipsr (RobBubble) had an interesting take on situations like these a while ago.
He argued that RUclips 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 RUclips 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.
Generally I don't have much of a problem with streamers and youtubers to reacting to tiktoks and memes, since it's short-form and lends itself to be more transformative through comedy. But with long-form, in my opinion the way streamers can react to them is to, like Lud said:
1. Either get permission from the original creator, or react to someone's videos that you know are chill about it.
2. Be as transformative as you can, don't just watch it and be silent the whole time.
3. Shoutout the creator whenever possible and direct viewership to their channel.
4. Don't reupload your reaction to RUclips separately, keep it limited to the VOD.
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.
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
Hearing someone older than me pronounce veteran youtuber jacksfilms as “jackFilm” somehow made ME feel like a boomer. Good video though, I agree 100%
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 RUclips 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 RUclipsr 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 RUclips 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 RUclips 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. RUclips 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 RUclips can make.
I love how XQC tags himself in the description for the reaction videos and not the original creator
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
6:44 lol einfach Antonias Stream im Mogul Mail
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.
There should be a system directly from RUclips, where you can mark your video as a reaction and link the original video. Then RUclips 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.
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
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?
@@elizabuga4337People either send their video to him or he asks permission before he includes it into his video.
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
@@معراج-ل4بIt 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.
@@معراج-ل4بi 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
its crazy were rehashing a debate from like 2014.
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 RUclipsr (Reved) as a bad example for playing videos because of why not, gets views right?
bin deutsch und habe den gegenteiligen Eindruck
12:09 "its ok to harm others until im rich enough to not use it"
To quote Tom Scott: "RUclips's copyright system isn't broken. The world's is.", and I believe he's right.
WTF does that even mean ? You Can Say this for basically any rules
@@danukendi8852exactly
@@danukendi8852ur so close to the point LMAO
@@bee7131 which is ? Maybe im dumb but this just sound like a bullshit quote from any bullshit Facebook groupe without any Real value to it
@@danukendi8852 ...It's exactly as it says. It's not RUclips's problem, it's the problem of the law; It also cannot be said about any rules, because copyright law is a very specific field of law that is very complex, but ultimately takes part in various socio-economical problems, because it has to do with the system being primarily there to facilitate big companies abusing it, rather than for its supposed purpose of protecting others' original works. If you see the video itself, you might understand it better, but long story short, the copyright law itself is made to be abused and to take advantage of others, and it only happens to protect original works sometimes.
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 RUclips 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
I honestly think these kinds of effortless reaction videos are unjustifiable unless the reactor gets explicit permission from the video creator to react on stream like this. Hasan and xQc are the worst offenders, and 99% of their reactions is them not even looking at the screen or saying anything, or even leaving for extended periods of time as the video is playing. Blatant theft.
People usually complain about Hasan pausing and talking too much throughout the video. He is constantly taking 20 min videos and turning them into an hour+ reaction. He gives plenty of commentary/opinions.
@@christiehamilton5785 he doesn't add anything of value though, just because you pause, and ramble for 10 minutes doesn't mean it should be considered transformative. Maybe if he did his react videos would get views even close to someone like asmon or even xqc
Hassan has a great justification though, trickle down economics
@@itsjustme6018actually they complain about both !
@@christiehamilton5785 yes hasan does this most of the time but there are times where he doesnt do this. hasan should at least put some effort so that he gives good commentary all the time, not most of the time. also he needs to pause the videos while he steps away. if he had done this since the very beginning, he could have potentially saved himself from most of the criticism he receives from doing react content, including the empty chair meme lol
I'm glad you put forth the call to action at the end there. Also I think it would be cool if youtube implemented a "watch party" for youtube content so you can watch yt videos synced with viewers and the views go towards the original creator.
That would be insane because an average youtube video you like is very likely not actually owned by who you think the creator is. RUclips can never and will never do this.
Spotify has the ability to do this, they can do this (and copyright isnt a problem then), but even then there are so many issues that people like you cant see.
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 RUclips channel not sure what he does on twitch.
Uncut reactions are the equivalent of screenshotting a tweet instead of quote-retweeting. One gets a stat boost and is directly linked to the original and the other has absolutely no benefit to the original whatsoever. If the original and reaction were directly linked and shared view stats and revenue appropriately there wouldn't be an issue. Still waiting on RUclips to add revenue sharing based on amount of content used and not just 100% or nothing.
That being said, reactions are so often terrible quality and there would be much less of an issue if they tried editing even slightly. That XQC reaction doesn't need to be that long, a couple short clips tops would have sufficed. When people look for reaction videos it's more often than not to see their reaction to a specific moment and not the entire thing, dead air and all. But XQC doesn't actually make anything, his entire life and career is to just be an attention machine for profit, as is Twitch's entire business model.
14:26
Damn, that's one long nap
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.
Adding onto that point, if a creator claims monetization of a reupload of their work, their channel icon and link should automatically show up in the description of the video, like what happens when you play a video game on a youtube video and youtube automatically detects and labels which game you're playing. This would help creators grow their communities and reap the rewards of their work.
Dark viper got crazy backlash for this like a year ago. Happy more people are catching on now
he was going solely after some people to boost his alt commentary channel.
@@abhikrajan8904 he made that channel a couple of months ago tho , it didn't even exist when he was talking about that stuff so where are you getting that from?
@@abhikrajan8904 his commentary alt didn't even exist back then tf
well when you compare react content to someone spiking a drink in a club you shouldnt be surprised when people call you out for that regardless of what you have to say about the ethics of react content
I can’t believe creators can’t do this already. Insane.
You didn't sin, that was Ludwig you're Mogul Mail
I wish RUclips would do a revenue sharing system for react content because even if it transformative it is built off of someone else so both should get a piece of the pie
That wouldn't work. xqc and hasan reacts first in a stream, so youtube probably wouldn't be able to count those views. Also, views don't just generate revenue, it also boosts its visibility, which means it could be used to get more views.
@@xaf15001 simple solution, just ban them from the streaming websites. they don't add anything anyways. xqc is just a leech, and hasan actively promotes racism, violence, hate, and disinformation, things others keep getting banned for (especially when they aren't actually doing any of that).
isn't this just Nintendo creator program?
@@xaf15001it is a nice idea though but yes definitely some issues
Splitting the revenue on content that actually is transformative probably wouldn't be legal though
There used to be a reaction channel I really enjoyed that would cut out sections or videos where he didn’t have actual reactions. That ended up cutting out probably half the videos encouraging people to go back and watch what they missed.
I mean, there are plenty of reactors that do that today. The ones I can think of off the top of my head are Atrioc, Coney, and Stanz.
@@garreluspyro, it's just a bit of a.... unique reaction type
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.
This problem is so simples to solve: just ask for permission to react. That's all. Some creators will allow, and cherish the exposure, others wont. The problem lies on the fact that they simply steal the content, and upload with their face plastered on 10% on the screen.
no, that wouldn't solve anything. The amount of messages large creators get is already massive. Even if they have 'people' they don't want to answer these messages all year. And big companies like Disney and Sony would never answer that. I've heard from some reactors that the tried ask permission beforehand and mostly didn't get an answer. And we're talking about big streamers here, not every 500 subscriber RUclipsr. When you factor in that there are millions of people streaming on Twitch and an ocean of reactors on RUclips and they should ask for every single reaction? That doesnt't seem to be realistic. And if you think, just only react when you get a permission, then you'd kill reacting all together. Just don't allow it anymore, that's much simpler.
@@BoredMarcus It's simpler than that. Let the creators choose a setting "Opt-In for React" or "Opt-Out for React" option and anyone that reacts to an "Opt-Out for React" content gets a strike (maybe not a Copyright Strike, but another system). And they could make it easy for big streamers by just having a setting to filter for this type of content.
Or even paying the original creators
@@Mr_Noteworthy This is better solution since some people would want the exposure. There is no reason reaction videos shouldn't be a thing if the owner/creator of intellectual property is indifferent or even wants the exposure to their content and theyre okay with it. No way at that point is it unethical.
No because even if the reactee is unaware of the exploitive nature of react content it would still be exploitive
I feel like Mogul Mail and Ludwig have found legal eagle and are just like "Damn, this content is fire"
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.
if there's anything on yt you can count on, it's ludwig filling us in on huge yt drama
Imagine spending nearly a year making a masterpiece of a video for the gambling youtuber to steal the video
Yeah I'm not a fan of the practice. It only takes a little thought to go, hmm does this feel fine to take someone else's hard work and sit there and make very few comments or even just make noises? In my eyes it's not really ethical.
If only an Australian man had written a 14 PAGES essay on this subject, and had a playlist with 18 videos about that. HO WAIT DarkViperAU DID
If only people were actually able to read instead of watching Charlies bad video on the topic that completely misrepresented the point DarkViperAU was trying to make
@@MewdoNah, Charlie's video didn't misrepresent DVAU's screed. His points were bad and he made them poorly. Content creation is not a zero sum game and never will be. STREAMING is a zero sum game because they are actively competing with each other for a shared time slot, but RUclips is not. One doesn't take away from another. I - and many others - care about good content. Rarely does another person's opinion matter for the original content and if it's good, I'll seek it out. Charlie's videos introduced me to Gabi Belle, Chad Chad, and Ordinary Sausage. It's possible that I would have discovered them on my own, but the quality of content was the draw. Not the reaction. The content itself.
@@evey0259 Charlies video definetly mispresented the topic, but it definetly didnt help that DVAU made a response video where he was emotionally loaded, which is understandable since he is passionate about the topic. The most agregious thing in Charlies video back then was the whole thing about the analogy DVAU used. Many people just focused on the analogy which was horribly misrepresented on Charlies part and clowned on DVAU because of it.
Also DVAU made an extremely good video a month ago in which he responds to the video of Gabi Belle which is absolutely horrible.
@@evey0259 Maybe you had issues understanding the essay because if you actually knew what was written you couldn't possibly say that Charlie didn't misrepresent Darkvipers points..
@@Mewdo If you were accused of being no better than a sexual predator, wouldn't you have a similar response?
Everyone will set the bar immediately below themselves, and after DVAU's video, a fair few of the streamers that were called out or engaged with it DID change their practices. That's not to say that the quality of the content increased exponentially, but if they are taking the steps to improve how it's presented, reacted to, and how much input they put on their part, then there's not much more that can be done until there's a policy change on RUclips's part.
Honestly, I've heard enough from him. I never liked his content, and didn't agree with his points or how he presented them. I thought Gabi Belle's video was spot on and consider her representation of viewers of RUclips, not Twitch viewers to be a much more honest and realistic assessment of how things actually are. That could be because I simply don't like streaming as a format, but if impressions are the name of the game, the effect would be felt on RUclips, not Twitch. Concurrent viewership on a live stream will almost always pale in comparison to views on RUclips.
Me personally i think reaction content should only be allowed if its A: informative and brings new information or content and B: not monetized
But Ludwig, the masses are dumb and they don't know how to process complex content without someone telling them how to feel about it! We need famous people to tell us what to do and feel!
If SSSniperWolf doesn't explain exactly what is happening and being said, several times, while shouting over the video, how could I possibly understand what was happening in the video!!?! /s
You both are annoying, if you actually watched the lemmino video you'd see it's highly likely US propaganda. He never actually talks about why there's many reasons JFKs assassination was staged, the biggest being the killer himself. He's a self proclaimed Marxist, his only credited claim for that is reading das capital. This "Marxist" then for some reason wants to kill the most left wing president the US has ever had? Anti war, pro peace, pro women's rights, pro civil rights, pro union, anti mc carthyism. Why would any leftists ever do this?? Imagine today, a socialist killing Bernie Sanders while he runs for 2024. Is that not sus to you?
Adding to the point on punishing false copyright claims - there should be a strike system similar to what’s in place, so channels can’t go and claim as much as they can even though they’re all false
If it were available, would you prefer to claim 100% monetisation on a video using your content, or would you like the option to select a percentage of monetisation if the work was somewhat ‘transformative’?
E.g. have the ability to select that you’re claiming 75% and then the other creator is given a 25% share because they did add a little extra content on top of yours.
that can't be done in good faith without a third (neutral) party. pretty much nothing can be done to be honest without a third party. otherwise you have a repeat of copyright strikes. the reality is that these problems stem from a more root problem: there is no legislation forcing these sites to review or moderate their content. almost 100% of the unhealthy problems that stem from these sites are rooted in the bottomline. maximising profits, minimising costs. moderation was a cost with no profit, so they cut it.
I like this
Imo, I think setting a percentage would be good. Asmongold for example, frequently takes a 10 minute video and turning it into a 30 minute reaction. So maybe claiming that 10 minutes would be cool.
For content that actually is transformative it would no be legal to get any percentage of the revenue.
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
Uploading this while reacting live to the Office theme song on a piano is such a Ludwig move.
The issue is sheer ammounts of videos reaction channels can put just by cutting 30 mins out of their full streams can be never competed by original creators that actually put weeks or even months into their videos. This just sets a bad precedent to newer streamers that creating something original will never be as rewarded as just eating and watching breaking bad on kick will.
The audacity for xqc to put zero effort on his content and getting angry on twitter when ppl call him out for it
I think darkviper's main point is more so that react content is exploitative, rather than simply "stealing views", but it is both. Reactors are taking videos with sometimes weeks or months of work put into them and sitting there watching it in 30 minutes in full with no transformative changes. It's impossible for someone who puts time and effort into their craft to compete for views against people who simply steal work and can output 30 times more "content". Also the evidence that react content brings views to creators is dubious, with most videos only pulling a couple hundred views at most after a big reaction, while tens of thousands of people now have a reason to never watch the original content. React content is so low effort and high quantity that it can over saturate the market.
Your solution idea of shifting monetization to original creators seems like it would at least help mitigate the damage, and if people were able to do it frequently it would disincentivize re uploading so many entire works unaltered to youtube. I also believe creators have the full right to strike channels and feel little to no remorse about it if people are stealing their entire works. Even as a burgeoning streamer you aren't entitled to stealing people's work just to prop yourself up, but wagging our fingers and hurling insults does way less than demonetizing and algorithmically disincentivizing the problem.
Claiming monetisation doesn’t solve the impressions lost from the react video existing in the first place, so I guess it would be “claim revenue split = how much video played AND add % of impressions from the react video to the original
Also is funny to read people being like “asmongold is the perfect example of good react content” and I’m just sat here like 😐 all he does is the same as sssniperwolf at best
@@meirl5700 I mean... asmon isnt the perfect example. But the guy is able to turn a 10 min vid to 30 min one. He puts in 5% more effort than sssssniperwolf
you're right. ludwig approaches this problem with a pragmatic mindset whilst moral issues persist, i.e. react content being exploitative
Lud I know you're relatively new to RUclips but they tried this years ago, basically it gave financial teeth to the current copyright system and they had people claiming videos for copyright that had seconds of their content causing the videos monetization to go into limbo until it was resolved.
Then if not the monetization option how about auto removal without strikes?
what if you could only claim the percentage of your footage used. so your video made up 50% of the content that could be the max claim. and add in additional feature where you can adjust the scale.
No, Ludwig is fully correct. Creators that are not part of a MCN have never had to ability to just claim monetization for themselves. People that were and still abusing the system to steal monetization are setting up fake music uploads to claim a whole video as theirs for having the soundbite.
The problem with this feature is someone can upload your content before you upload it and claim the profits. Like someone can 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.
@@jacewhite8540 Very hard to make that legally solid. RUclips can only operate the way it does because it doesn't interfere with uploaded content but only gives the users the tools to do so
It is interesting and frustrating that copyright claiming and geoblocking are not avaliable for all creators. Now that I know this, it is definitely on YT to do the simplest solution of just allowing this to verified people (or some other system to prevent scammers/abusers)
People would just abuse the system if they had access to it.
Similar to how a lot of MCN's falsely strike videos all the time, content creators are gonna be much worse with it.
@@jellytwins1018 it should be on youtube to regulate the misuse of it. Escrow, reviews and severe punishments is plenty to discourage and stop people from trying to abuse it. "people will abuse it" shouldn't be an excuse for a feature like that.
let me point out, lemmino has the power to take down xqc whenever he wants
But will get large negative backlash if he does.
Great suggestion. I agree 100% that this is the best way to do it. I do think reactions can help the creator being reacted to though, and if at all possible I think there should be a way to maybe set a percentage split as well. So Lemmino for example could just have a setting on their channel saying, "You're free to react and reupload my content for 90% of the videos revenue.", or some other number he chooses. A smaller creator could set it to be free to react to them, and be happy with the eyeballs maybe. Seems like a fairly simple thing to implement.
Another example of a channel making a video reacting to copywritten material in a truly transformative and useful way is Cinema Therapy. They "Technically" are reacting because they're watching a movie or show or episode of something; but the majority of it is small clips just long enough to give context or use as an example or thing to springboard into a deep topic, while the majority of it is good indepth psychological and cinematic explanations and breakdowns from a psychologist and a movie director/cinematographer. It's really amazing content, and as a result of having indepth and nuanced videos and topics or takes its not really... as huge or as seen as it should be but thats besides the point.
The reactions where someones just... staring watching the video, giving a chuckle or say five words in 10 minutes, are just... disgusting and sad. :\ It's becoming a necessity for newer creators much like Ludwig said, its seen as a "If I dont do this I wont grow or make it, because everyone else is."
It's painfully similar to why bodybuilders or powerlifters inevitably turn to steroids in their sport because... everyone else at the top is doing not only steroids but unimaginable amounts; so if they dont the passion and love they have for it, the thing they want will just... have 0 chance.
Ah a fellow Cinema Therapy enjoyer
@@thesalsaguy4395 Very much so! They've helped me through a lot of very painful and tough things honestly.
As a fan of well reacted videos, I personally seek out reaction of something I already consumed and enjoyed, to see how other people react to it. Its the same effect of laughing at a funny video and showing it to your friend so you can laugh along again with them.
Yeah, me too. For example, youtubers reacting to animations made of their content and appreciating the artists is always so nice to see
reacts can be good for both parties if the reactor makes a good effort to push their audience to the original creator. Just opening the video, and closing it without mentioning the channel or linking it is scummy
exactly, people talk about adding insightful commentary when reacting, but I really like watching streamers have fun while they watch something, or finding it interesting with me... it's that thing, it's like watching something with a friend, I think it's silly to think this is not as good as original content
Here's what I would consider to be the perfect solution.
Have REACT channels pick older content rather than newer content to react to. XQC could've picked one of Lemmino's older videos, said something like "if you enjoy this person's content then here are the links you need to follow them" and leave it at that.
REACT content should be used to boost other creators, not to steal food from their plate.
Also, REACT channels should avoid covering the same creators multiple times, just to be chill.
STEAL FOOD FROM THEIR PLATE... C'MON MAN YOU LIVE IN A FICTIONAL WORLD.
at the end of the day people will do things with the best incentives. the viewer demand drives people to make react content on current news/topics. there are people who do cover older content but that is a completely different category of reacting, as the whole point of covering new content is to take/siphon views related to that content at the height of its popularity. there is no godly power that can force people to do any of the things you mention without a shift in the incentive system overall (which is ludwig's proposal).
people need to stop with the idea of asking creators or streamers to "be chill". it would be chill if mcd gave me free fries every 3rd order but that will never happen. as long as people will pay and there are no penalties, the business will produce. any large streamer/creator with a platform is a business and the decisions they make are based on market demand, not moral value.
LEMMiNO deserves all the revenue and publicity as possible. the raw amount of hours and effort that goes into his videos the past few years has been unmatched, seeing anyone but him profiting off his work doesn't feel remotely morally correct.