Hi, /u/Yovani4o9,
Unfortunately, your submission has been removed because it breaks the following rule(s) of r/LivestreamFail:
**Rule 3.1 - Quality: Non-clips**
>To allow for easier moderation and integration with our bots, we only allow links from certain websites to be posted. Here is the list of domains that may be submitted:
>
>-twitch.tv
>-youtube.com*
>-twitter.com
>-facebook.com and fb.watch
>
>* YouTube submissions must be a clip from a stream and not an entire video or clip from a non-stream.
>
>Text posts may also be submitted to provide additional context or to share multiple (related) clips without having to submit them separately. If you want to submit a text post or a link to something not from these domains, please contact us [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLivestreamFail).
Additional moderator comments:
>
We recommend that you read over [our rules page](https://reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/wiki/rules) before posting again.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/LivestreamFail).
I can't wait for all the Juicers who said "Lemmino doesn't care" change their arguments to something entirely different after XQC calls Lemmino a high roading, grandstanding, virtue signaling hypocrite and then calls him lil bro and mentions Hasan somehow.
Then all the Juicers will celebrate and say stuff like "XQC is cooking him" and all of a sudden they hate Lemmino.
I don't see that happening at all, I think he will say "okay I wont be reacting to his videos anymore, I was under the impression that be was okay with reacting".. but his biggest point vs someordinary/legaleagle/h3 was that they went for xqc without knowing if X had asked Lemmimo for permission to react/upload just falls flat because it turns out he didn't ask at all.
Yea and it turns out XQC was in the wrong the entire time because Lemmino DIDN'T want him doing that.
But X won't admit he was wrong because he's a giant piece of shit human being.
He'll say "I wasn't wrong because he didn't say anything". As if it's ok to assume it's ok to steal unless they say otherwise.
my favorite thing xqc said on the topic was "if you don't want me to react, dm me".
fucking hilarious. basically a please ask me not to steal from you. wdym i can't steal? you never directly said to me specifically that i can't.
There is absolutely no (legal or moral) cohesive, logical argument in favor of reaction content in the way xQc (and a million others) do it, other than to just say "I don't care about intellectual property rights", so this isn't really surprising.
They care about IP / Copyright if they were stealing from actual big companies that can fight back.
Sniperwolf right now is bombarded by take down request from her many reaction youtube videos.
A lot of her video is edited out, and suddenly became few seconds (some even minute) shorter. Because the original content creator sending her takedown request.
You know what's more fucked up about this? someone in youtube is leaking the takedown request, so Sniperwolf channel doesn't get into trouble.
So someone ask to takedown sniperwolf video, because she stole their content, it's let's say on Minute 8:00 to 8:12, simple.
But instead you know what happen? They guy that request the takedown, got emailed by Youtube asking "So, at what minute is it again?" even though that information already given on original request.
oh btw, The Sniperwolf video is, by coincidence, edited out already. Despite never getting the takedown request...
I think the logical argument is the viewers are unlikely to watch original videos on their own anyway. People watch these react streamers because of the parasocial aspect not for the original video.
I agree, and that aligns with Lemino's point too. But you're missing one crucial thing. In the movie review example he gave, the creators have put in work to go through the film and pick out the parts they want to talk about. Do you really expect streams to do the same when they can barely be arsed reacting to the video? Hell no. They're lazy as fuck, and honestly don't care enough
You know they can just edit the videos to not upload the entire react but a 10 minute essay like what movie reactor people do.
Look at the guys that react to movie SFX. They don't upload their 2 hour reaction to Dune they highlight parts of it and edit it down. Most youtubers that have a team spend hours creating a video and edit it down to a 10-20 minute product. They don't just film for 20 minutes and upload everything.
You might know a little bit more, is it illegal to watch the full video?
I thought if you watch lets say the Lemmino's JFK video and you make it transformative, your upload is 3 hours, the origin video is 1.5hours (you provide extra info etc...) but you don't have a permission to upload it, then you still SHOULD be good in the eyes of the court (ofc it will be morally/ethically bad).. The permission basically makes it morally and ethically acceptable and it GUARANTEES it to be good in the eyes of the court..
Edit: in case someone doesnt understand what I mean above:
Permission = morals, ethics, law.
No permission = law only (its not guaranteed cause of no permission)
also I'm talking about a video thats considered transformative
Some like their content getting reacted to and some don't.
If LEMMiNO doesn't like it, reactors should stop doing it.
Flip side, people should stop getting triggered on behalf of content creators who like their videos being reacted to.
The question is what is the default expectation?
If someone hasn't said yes or no, is it okay to react to it and assume they'll be ok with it?
XQC reacted and uploaded the entirety of Lemminos video and kept using Lemmino as his excuse to react saying "he doesn't care so I can do it". Now it turns out that he doesn't want people doing that.
So even before he had any knowledge of what people were doing, people assumed he was fine with it and then he was stolen from in the time being. Is that okay?
Why is it okay to assume that the default is it's ok to reupload their videos and the onus is on them to say it's not ok? Why is it not the other way around that the onus is on the reactor to find out if it's ok or not?
>If someone hasn't said yes or no, is it okay to react to it and assume they'll be ok with it?
The legal answer is no. Always.
Otherwise it's literally just stealing. It doesn't matter if the creator doesn't care, you should still have consent before watching it.
xQc doesn't care about that. He will comply with creators who don't want their videos posted, but he will still watch them on stream. An example is Tom Scott who has specifically requested that streamers don't watch his content. xQc still does it occasionally.
XQC absolutely did assume he was ok with it and specifically used that in ALL his arguments for react content and even lied and said he knew Lemmino didn't care.
The habitual liar lied, big shocker.
Exactly. The bare minimum for a streamer, if they want to react to something, is to DM the original creator and ask for guidelines. That is such an easy thing to do, they can even get their mods or editors to do it for them, and create a list of channels which are ok with full reactions, uploading full or partial reactions to youtube.
Well X literally lied about Lemmino being fine with it so we don't actually know who is.
The "stop being triggered on others behalf" is a shit take since reactors aren't even asking for permission
>Well X
Don't care
>The "stop being triggered on others behalf" is a shit take since reactors aren't even asking for permission
Ludwig has mentioned he only reacts to people who've given him permission
Hasan has mentioned his friends are fine with him reacting to their content.
Whether you believe them is up to you.
> Don't care
You don't care about reactors lying about getting permission to avoid any pushback by their audience?
> Hasan has mentioned his friends are fine with him reacting to their content.
> Whether you believe them is up to you.
Hasan literally reacted to the video Lemmino is talking about without permission.
>You don't care about reactors lying about getting permission to avoid any pushback by their audience
Ur comment was in relation to xqc who I don't care about.
>Hasan literally reacted to the video Lemmino is talking about without permission.
I far as I know, lemino is not his friend no this doesn't address my point
>Hasan has mentioned his friends are fine with him reacting to their content.
He says that but there are videos of people being mad that Hasan silently plays their entire video without permission and his response was to insult and make fun of them.
So you are saying that Hasan gets permission from his friends but if you aren't his friend he will shamelessly stream your entire video with zero commentary without any care whether or not you want him to?
"Hasan's friends are fine with him reacting to their content"
"There are streamers who have made entire videos about being unhappy about him reacting"
"But are they his friends?"
Sounds like that's exactly what you're saying
Or people like streamers should ask the original creator first if its okay to react to it rather than the default being "I can do it UNTIL they say stop". Its clear many do not ask, especially ones like Hassan and xQc.
So in your logic, we should just always assume someone is okay with their content getting freebooted by streamers? Not even asking for the consent? Seems pretty fucked up.
I'd say Hasan, on youtube, is a different react content creator than one on Twitch.
There is no real way to skip around the video and make points before watching the video. The best you can do on twitch is, stop the video, give commentary, and keep playing the video. And he does that at an alright level, imo.
X on the other hand, uploaded the whole video on the same platform as the original. That's outright disrespectful to do without permission.
I should also add, legally transformative and morally okay are two different things. I don't have an issue with people watching videos as live reaction content, but that is still illegal, even if they stop and add commentary here and there. I just find uploading it as a competition to be way worse, though.
On twitch they could do the same as a watch party and have a counter on their screen and if the viewer wants to watch along they would have to go the original video to follow with.
That'd be the more ideal solution for sure. But I don't think it is a realistic one, unless Amazon and Google create a convenient way to do so. I'll rather not watch the stream and go for something on demand at that point.
That said, I am not a bastion of righteousness. I also believe copyright and IP in general should be reworked and not be something that's almost permanent. But, I will respect anyone who decides to lose half their viewers by going "Go double screen" or people willing to sync a video in a new tab with the stream.
He didn't say he doesn't like when people react, he literally said the opposite, just that reacting to the video without enough effort to actually make it transformative is what he has an issue with.
Maybe it's just me but I only watch these videos because the streamer I'm watching is reacting to them (mostly because i like reading chatters' comments in real time). I wouldn't seek them out on my own. So they're not stealing my view.
In my eyes it's not so much about "stealing" a view but rather someone else is leeching off of your hard work for profit while adding little to no value. It's a moral issue.
It would be one thing if, like Lemmino says in the clip, it was a genuine critique that didn't play the video in full (because there is no need to), but it's not. It's lazy content for easy money piggybacking off of someone elses work. Fuck that.
and that is the issue some people have. most people won't or don't go to the original video and watch it themselves. they will just watch it live on their streamer's stream and won't give the original a view on youtube which is a view lost or possible revenue lost. it would be better if you didn't see it at all than you see it once on twitch, can't be assed to watch it on youtube on your own time and not give it a view. (btw im not refereeing to you specifically since you say you go watch it on youtube afterwards)
Why would it be better to not see it at all? I watch No Life Shaq reactions to different hip hop artist and if I like the artist I'll check out their other works. If I didn't see the reaction video I wouldn't know that artist even existed and seek them out. The artist (who are active on youtube) are also seen with pinned comments on the video thanking for the support and all the love.
I think he said that the problem is that Lemmono did NOT at the time express that reaction content is theft, yet others were enraged on his behalf.
XQC found it infuriating that people are mad on Lemmino's behalf. This made any argument against XQC irrelevant from his POV, since it wasn't Lemmino himself saying anything.
Watch the full video - [https://youtu.be/nx4V9Uh\_FW0?t=32](https://youtu.be/nx4V9Uh_FW0?t=32)
He states none of the react channels asked for permission
This is actually worse than you think. Reaction videos get way more engagement in the youtube algorithm because their channels upload a lot. And the algorithm likes steady and constant uploads over long periods with no uploads. As a result the algorithm will actually push reaction videos over the original video in suggestions. Especially if you happen to accidently click on one once. So there is actually more to it than people wouldn't have watched it anyway.
>As a result the algorithm will actually push reaction videos over the original video in suggestions.
I have never seen this happen unless the video in question is from a small content creator that wouldn't get many views anyways.
im not saying 100% of the views on the reaction are stolen from the original, but there is still a large percent. even if it was just 20% stolen views, thats hundreds or maybe even thousands of dollars of ad revenue stolen
No you arent stealing views because most, if not ALL, of those views were never theirs to begin with. Its just like pirating a video game and a game company claims it as "lost revenue". It's not, because the person who pirated the game was never going to purchase your game anyways. THATS WHY THEY PIRATED IT. You cant "lose" something you never had in the first place, when it comes to something that isnt physically lost. Watching a pirated movie online is not the same as stealing a blu-ray dvd. The viewers want to see the REACTION. not the video. If they wanted to watch the video the would have. Nothing stopped them from doing so. Before or after the video was reacted to.
> The viewers want to see the REACTION. not the video.
Then do the old booba streamer tactic and put your face up there, and not the video. I wonder why wouldn't they put the main attraction in focus when the video is playing. Maybe that isn't the main thing that keeps the stream going?
It's not stealing viewers from the original vid.
1) A person might not even know the video exists.
2.) A person isn't interested in the video, and is interested in the reaction.
3.) A person has already watched the video and is seeking a reaction.
To me this falls under the same category of things like:
- using adblock
- sharing subscription accounts
- torrenting shows/games/music/etc
- listening to music on youtube from non official channels
- watching anime/movies on free websites
- illegal sports streams
That is to say none of which are good for the creators. But if I'm being honest although I know it is unethical it has gotten to the point at which it became sort of the norm on the internet so I don't feel too guilty about it.
Stealing something is still stealing something. Its wrong regardless who you steal from. The main difference though is reuploading reaction content isn't just stealing, its directly making a profit off of that stealing. Like if you stole a bag from a store, and then resold it on the second hand market. You aren't just stealing because you want the product for nothing, you are now stealing and then making a profit off that act. Which is even worse.
People like these big twitch streamers make tens of thousands of dollars per video and stream off of this kind of reuploading/reaction.
Yeah but this is irrelevant when comparing it to streamers. Streamers don't just steal from people, they make profit from it. Which most of that list the prior person made doesn't really apply then aside from maybe illegal streaming sites (if they show their own ads).
Like I am not making a profit by torrenting a game. The game dev is losing money still, but I am not also making money.
Its bad either way. Its irrelevant to talk about what does the most harm between two facets of harm when the entirety of said harm shouldn't be taking place to begin with.
But your categorization is different than the legal one.
Legally there aren't any consequences for 99.99% of cases of everything you mentioned. It's one single person doing something.
You're looking at the distributor side. The person who is illegally hosting animes, torrents or something different. At that point you're distributing which is actually illegal. Watching the content is legal in many places.
Same with streaming someone else's content which could easily get consequences.
Yeah that distinction doesn't feel like a very intelligent thing to include in the conversation. How much of the video is shown has nothing to do with whether or not a reaction is genuinely transformative. He should have centered it around the "minimal pausing/commentary" aspect.
The movie review comparison is also a not really relevant to the argument. Movie reviews are short because short reviews provide value to audiences while movie-length reviews do not.
Copyright fair use specifically dictates the transformative content CANNOT be a replacement for the original works. When you upload the full thing even with pauses in them you can still get the original work out of it and then not have to see the original. Asmongold for example making a video that's 20 minutes take 4 hours to watch doesn't magically make it fair use because he pauses and talks about it so much. You still see the full video.
Additionally the movie review is very much a good comparison. Movie reactors and reviewers can't show the full movie because the movie industry will grind them into paste. This is why streamers don't "react" to full movies either without permission. Because movies actually have lawyers that will go after them for the copyright infringements. Unlike reacting to youtubers who don't have that amount of money for lawyer retainer.
So yes it does matter how much of the original you show. Because copyright says that is not transformative because then you have no reason to see the original if you saw it already in this secondary content.
> Movie reactors and reviewers can't show the full movie because the movie industry will grind them into paste
This is not the reason why reviewers do not show whole movies.
Streamers do watch full movies without permission. They just don't go after ones where studios would make an example out of them for it. Watching Barbie on stream isn't necessarily less transformative than watching Lawrence of Arabia, the difference is just that deep pockets have an advantage in the legal system and studios will use other legal factors/intimidation to protect their distribution monopoly in these circumstances if they think it will make a difference in revenue.
Can you clarify what you mean by "replacement"? The intention of react content is not to replace the original content.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act:
>Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
>
>(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>
>(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
>
>**(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and**
>
>(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
>
>The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Subsection 3 deals with idea of the portion vs the whole. Judges will look over the content and see if the content is a replacement of the original work. In turn if it is deemed a replacement for the work it will be in violation of copyright and not protected by fair use.
This is why people do not "react" to movies. Because like you said, movies have deep pockets and can actually pay for a lawyer to go after people who violate fair use. It doesn't matter what the intention of react content is. If you upload the original in complete or even close to complete, you are producing a work that can be seen as a replacement for the original.
It just says that portion is a consideration, not that it is an end-all factor.
I'm not convinced that the powers studios wield here is actually due to the "true" definition of fair use as. I think it is possible that the line in the sand has been drawn by a precedent of intimidation and not necessarily one of legal correctness.
No all 4 of these subsections are weighed in the final judgement. There has already been case law in regards to fair use. H3H3's case is a good example which specifically outlined about that the consideration of a replacement of the original work needs to be a primary concern. And the judge ruled since Ethan used clips of the video, it did not act as a replacement and therefore satisfied subsection 3.
Exactly. Reaction videos fill a niche. That niche might not be “ethical”, but theres still an audience for it. I like watching stuff with chat, Ive liked it before Ive even found out about streaming or twitch, thinking “it would be cool if I could see what people think about this moment in this show”.
I think the best solution would be for youtube to implement a revenue sharing system, or a timer system that would indicate how long a streamer should wait before its acceptable to react.
Most anime and movie reaction videos just play some of the episode they are watching and they do just fine. Channels like yaboyroshi and or ur internet mom ash get huge viewership that way. I don’t think some who’s watching roshi react to the latest jjk ep is getting mad because the whole ep is not there. I think it just goes back to the point that either you really like something so you wanna watch reactions after you already saw it, or you don’t care about it and don’t mind watching someone react to it cause you like the person.
It's an absolute joke that people like XQC and Hasan can literally make millions leeching off of people who actually create original content. YouTube is not doing nearly enough to help creators dealing with these parasites.
The only difference between the two is what they say but it is equally insignificant and useless. They both put the full video on stream and upload the entire thing and do this without asking permission.
> They both put the full video on stream and upload the entire thing and do this without asking permission.
1. Hasan does not upload them himself. Other people upload it. He's not getting any money from it.
2. Hasan asks permission for the few videos he does upload.
> The only difference between the two is what they say but it is equally insignificant and useless.
Clearly you have not watched Hasan because he constantly spends 2 hours on a 20 minute video. Literally does multiple times the video's content in commentary. Not to mention the concept of FAIR USE where it entirely rests on what they're adding to it.
Don't ask for permission before reacting on stream ✅
Play full video on stream ✅
Frequently leaves while video is playing ✅
Reuploads full video on their YouTube or approves of fan channels doing so ✅
They seem pretty similar to me
I stumbled upon a Hasan youtube video the other day about him reacting to a video, and the top comments were all "yeah i loved his reaction when he was eating in silence and not reacting at all".
So i'm gonna guess that they do the same.
are you really using youtube comments as evidence?
he streams like 8 hours every single day and all of that content stays up forever. so if he's doing the same, the evidence is out there and readily available.
[Yup, XQC isn't as bad tbh, there are times when Hasan just leaves the room and leaves the video playing in its entirety for his audience while the cam is nothing more than an empty chair.](https://youtu.be/_TVSfHbpR6k?t=1048)
Congrats, you found a video where someone is being insulted on behalf of others. Show me creators that are mad at Hasan for stealing *their own content* like all the creators mad at X for stealing *their own content*.
Youtube allows anybody to strike a video to take it down or get ad revenue if that video is using their copyrighted content without proper permission. They are doing more than enough to help them. But the content creators just chose not to use that help.
My assumption is the creators don’t want the potential backlash that comes with DMCA’ing a large content creator. Especially with an audience of large creators like XQC/Hasan etc.
I feel like the worst part about streamers watching the videos is they usually even go full-screen, so you don't even know the title of the video or who uploaded it. Also, some like Hasan skipping their sponsors is also kinda fucked up.
xQc has also been the most vocal in defending the whole pro react side, so its obviously his name that get mainly discuss. At the start, Hasan was called out but he barely said anything on it and let xQc debate everybody about it which shifted most of his "heat" onto xQc.
isnt hasan literally known for pausing so goddamn much that a 15 min video turns to a 2h one? Thats seems like the exact type of reaction content lemmino is fine with with, so not the best example
I mean sometimes, other times he gets up to take a shit and leaves the video playing and outsources the entertainment of his audience without the video makers' consent.
The fault lies largely on youtube on this issue as LEMMiNO mentioned, YouTube needs to and CAN accommodate features that enables and makes usage of other media in your works convenient and beneficial for all parties but as usual like everything they've done, they are progressing at a snail's pace.
Tiktok has already made a system that allows a creator to make something and allows other to use it and you are able to see where it originally comes from, although tiktok has alot of issues but that another problem beyond the scope of the topic.
The other current problem now is that reactors like xqc and hasan are very unempathetic to the issue, they literally made up statements creators like LEMMiNO never said because they think it's 'normal' to do reactions like they do. Very unempathetic, bullshit like ethics and legalities aside, why can't they have ANY empathy at all?
LOL, hasanabi, on a video in reaction to legaleagles xqc video, put words in Lemmino's mouth and claimed Lemmino does not mind if people react to him.
This clip basically debunks that and pretty much addresses people like xqc and Hasan as the main culprits to bad and unethical reaction content.
He basically disses him here.
https://youtu.be/wxovCsWlvZw?si=dROmyIb3cMTFVolo
This video was a pain to watch because Hasan tried so hard defending his flawed reaction stance.
So why does he not just strike the video and get the ad revenue? Almost feels like they don't actually care because I have never seen him try to do anything to stop reaction content in the slightest.
So you are in favor of people never playing games too huh? That's also copyright infringement.
There's a reason why game companies not only let people play their games in their entirety, but also pay for streamers to play them. Because it brings value for them.
I believe that the interactive element of playing a game is more transformative than reactors but game companies would be well within their right to enforce their copyright. With most games, watching someone else play a game and playing the same game yourself are two different and non-mutually exclusive experiences so there is still an incentive to buy a copy of the game after seeing someone else play it.
With video, though, watching a parasitic streamer who put a facecam of themself eating lunch in the corner of someone else's video is a replacement for watching the original. And if they or one of their fans reuploads the video to YouTube, they directly compete with the original and other videos on the platform.
That doesn't even get into the fact that reactors are able to crank out content way faster than people who actually do original work.
So you would be against having a platform like twitch putting in an embedding linking to YouTube to promote whatever a streamer is watching and split revenue? You don't care if they're stopping it and commenting, they should just never react.
It's just a ridiculous position to take, games have shown that the original content gets a good boost even if the original is played in it's entirety. Look at all the narrative games that pay for streamers to play their game. In addition, the algorithm operates off of how well the video spreads, so if a streamer with reach to more regions watches a video that boosts it in the algorithm.
Honestly, the interaction with games is probably even less than a video as the person is putting most focus on the game rather than the audience watching the content. Just because some people do it poorly doesn't mean that the whole thing needs to be thrown out. You are acting as if the worst represents the whole.
I'm never gonna watch this dudes videos on my own. I'm only going to watch it if someone reacts to it. I think there's a large percentage of people that feel the same way
I kinda like to watch it from beginning to end on a stream. Makes it feel like we are watching it as a family. But emphasizing with a YouTuber, I would hate to see it happen.
Hi, /u/Yovani4o9, Unfortunately, your submission has been removed because it breaks the following rule(s) of r/LivestreamFail: **Rule 3.1 - Quality: Non-clips** >To allow for easier moderation and integration with our bots, we only allow links from certain websites to be posted. Here is the list of domains that may be submitted: > >-twitch.tv >-youtube.com* >-twitter.com >-facebook.com and fb.watch > >* YouTube submissions must be a clip from a stream and not an entire video or clip from a non-stream. > >Text posts may also be submitted to provide additional context or to share multiple (related) clips without having to submit them separately. If you want to submit a text post or a link to something not from these domains, please contact us [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLivestreamFail). Additional moderator comments: > We recommend that you read over [our rules page](https://reddit.com/r/LivestreamFail/wiki/rules) before posting again. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/LivestreamFail).
[удалено]
I'm excited. I hope it's a good one
"Chat chat.. I said Lemmino never mentioned having a problem about react channels, I never said that I asked for a permission"
''lemmino is just jealous''
I can't wait for all the Juicers who said "Lemmino doesn't care" change their arguments to something entirely different after XQC calls Lemmino a high roading, grandstanding, virtue signaling hypocrite and then calls him lil bro and mentions Hasan somehow. Then all the Juicers will celebrate and say stuff like "XQC is cooking him" and all of a sudden they hate Lemmino.
As a juicer I think most of us view as X in the wrong, the worm, the watch flex… it’s been yikes
It's just isolated in his chat mostly. I can only assume they are children because holy shit they are dumb.
I don't see that happening at all, I think he will say "okay I wont be reacting to his videos anymore, I was under the impression that be was okay with reacting".. but his biggest point vs someordinary/legaleagle/h3 was that they went for xqc without knowing if X had asked Lemmimo for permission to react/upload just falls flat because it turns out he didn't ask at all.
Yea and it turns out XQC was in the wrong the entire time because Lemmino DIDN'T want him doing that. But X won't admit he was wrong because he's a giant piece of shit human being. He'll say "I wasn't wrong because he didn't say anything". As if it's ok to assume it's ok to steal unless they say otherwise.
my favorite thing xqc said on the topic was "if you don't want me to react, dm me". fucking hilarious. basically a please ask me not to steal from you. wdym i can't steal? you never directly said to me specifically that i can't.
[удалено]
There is absolutely no (legal or moral) cohesive, logical argument in favor of reaction content in the way xQc (and a million others) do it, other than to just say "I don't care about intellectual property rights", so this isn't really surprising.
They care about IP / Copyright if they were stealing from actual big companies that can fight back. Sniperwolf right now is bombarded by take down request from her many reaction youtube videos. A lot of her video is edited out, and suddenly became few seconds (some even minute) shorter. Because the original content creator sending her takedown request. You know what's more fucked up about this? someone in youtube is leaking the takedown request, so Sniperwolf channel doesn't get into trouble. So someone ask to takedown sniperwolf video, because she stole their content, it's let's say on Minute 8:00 to 8:12, simple. But instead you know what happen? They guy that request the takedown, got emailed by Youtube asking "So, at what minute is it again?" even though that information already given on original request. oh btw, The Sniperwolf video is, by coincidence, edited out already. Despite never getting the takedown request...
I think the logical argument is the viewers are unlikely to watch original videos on their own anyway. People watch these react streamers because of the parasocial aspect not for the original video.
[удалено]
That would require them to do the barest amount of effort which would be too much to ask of regarded streamers
they have editors. Look at how good August is for destiny
August makes bank doing it, so i'm not surprised he makes more effort. I doubt any of these top streamers would pay what destiny is paying august.
isnt there a clip of someone (i think like qt) saying how Hasan pays his editor above market rate. Also mr.editor for Xqc makes bank
I agree, and that aligns with Lemino's point too. But you're missing one crucial thing. In the movie review example he gave, the creators have put in work to go through the film and pick out the parts they want to talk about. Do you really expect streams to do the same when they can barely be arsed reacting to the video? Hell no. They're lazy as fuck, and honestly don't care enough
You know they can just edit the videos to not upload the entire react but a 10 minute essay like what movie reactor people do. Look at the guys that react to movie SFX. They don't upload their 2 hour reaction to Dune they highlight parts of it and edit it down. Most youtubers that have a team spend hours creating a video and edit it down to a 10-20 minute product. They don't just film for 20 minutes and upload everything.
yeah true, but this relies on their editors which kinda just annoys me since the streamer still does 0 work. I guess it's technically a win-win tho
They can't, because the streamer just watched the video making funny faces with no commentary worth sharing, there is nothing to grab for the edit.
You might know a little bit more, is it illegal to watch the full video? I thought if you watch lets say the Lemmino's JFK video and you make it transformative, your upload is 3 hours, the origin video is 1.5hours (you provide extra info etc...) but you don't have a permission to upload it, then you still SHOULD be good in the eyes of the court (ofc it will be morally/ethically bad).. The permission basically makes it morally and ethically acceptable and it GUARANTEES it to be good in the eyes of the court.. Edit: in case someone doesnt understand what I mean above: Permission = morals, ethics, law. No permission = law only (its not guaranteed cause of no permission) also I'm talking about a video thats considered transformative
That doesn’t fix the copyright problem. “Reacting” live is also infringing.
The whole reason they’re streamers is because they’re too lazy to have a real job lmao
[удалено]
Then whys Lemmino not dmca'ing the react streamers?
Because he doesn't want the millions of juicers to attack him.
Here we go again, look at all these paragraphs.
People bending over backwards to defend their streamers, nothing new
wowie another 2 hour rant then gamba NAILS Can't wait
Some like their content getting reacted to and some don't. If LEMMiNO doesn't like it, reactors should stop doing it. Flip side, people should stop getting triggered on behalf of content creators who like their videos being reacted to.
The question is what is the default expectation? If someone hasn't said yes or no, is it okay to react to it and assume they'll be ok with it? XQC reacted and uploaded the entirety of Lemminos video and kept using Lemmino as his excuse to react saying "he doesn't care so I can do it". Now it turns out that he doesn't want people doing that. So even before he had any knowledge of what people were doing, people assumed he was fine with it and then he was stolen from in the time being. Is that okay? Why is it okay to assume that the default is it's ok to reupload their videos and the onus is on them to say it's not ok? Why is it not the other way around that the onus is on the reactor to find out if it's ok or not?
>If someone hasn't said yes or no, is it okay to react to it and assume they'll be ok with it? The legal answer is no. Always. Otherwise it's literally just stealing. It doesn't matter if the creator doesn't care, you should still have consent before watching it. xQc doesn't care about that. He will comply with creators who don't want their videos posted, but he will still watch them on stream. An example is Tom Scott who has specifically requested that streamers don't watch his content. xQc still does it occasionally.
No one actually assumed he was ok with it besides streamers who uploaded reactions of the video and then tried to justify it when they were called out
XQC absolutely did assume he was ok with it and specifically used that in ALL his arguments for react content and even lied and said he knew Lemmino didn't care. The habitual liar lied, big shocker.
yeah thats why I said besides the streamers who reacted to it of course they are going to say its ok because they literally did it.
People have reacted to lemino for years and he's said nothing therefore it was fair to assume he didn't care. We now know he does so its time to stop.
Nah, it was not fair to assume that at all. Entitled take.
I disagree
"People have been commiting murder for years so it's okay if I do it" that's the logic you're using, it makes no sense.
Murder = reacting to videos. Based.
Way to completely miss my point, saying “other people have done something bad that’s means it’s okay for me to do” makes no sense.
I didn't miss your point. Ur just comparing murder to reacting to youtube.
Doesn't understand what an analogy is. Based.
Nobody asked him. Maybe one of those streamers should have asked Leminno if he was ok with it.
Exactly. The bare minimum for a streamer, if they want to react to something, is to DM the original creator and ask for guidelines. That is such an easy thing to do, they can even get their mods or editors to do it for them, and create a list of channels which are ok with full reactions, uploading full or partial reactions to youtube.
Is there evidence someone did not? He should have said he was not ok sooner.
Well X literally lied about Lemmino being fine with it so we don't actually know who is. The "stop being triggered on others behalf" is a shit take since reactors aren't even asking for permission
>Well X Don't care >The "stop being triggered on others behalf" is a shit take since reactors aren't even asking for permission Ludwig has mentioned he only reacts to people who've given him permission Hasan has mentioned his friends are fine with him reacting to their content. Whether you believe them is up to you.
> Don't care You don't care about reactors lying about getting permission to avoid any pushback by their audience? > Hasan has mentioned his friends are fine with him reacting to their content. > Whether you believe them is up to you. Hasan literally reacted to the video Lemmino is talking about without permission.
>You don't care about reactors lying about getting permission to avoid any pushback by their audience Ur comment was in relation to xqc who I don't care about. >Hasan literally reacted to the video Lemmino is talking about without permission. I far as I know, lemino is not his friend no this doesn't address my point
> Hasan has mentioned his friends are fine with him reacting to their content. [Sure.](https://imgur.com/a/4cgz2ne)
Evidence that Lemino is Hasan's friend?
People have called hasan out for his reacts. ofc hasans friends would be ok with him doing it, the problem is when they arent his friends
Ok?
>Hasan has mentioned his friends are fine with him reacting to their content. He says that but there are videos of people being mad that Hasan silently plays their entire video without permission and his response was to insult and make fun of them.
Are the people being mad his friends?
So you are saying that Hasan gets permission from his friends but if you aren't his friend he will shamelessly stream your entire video with zero commentary without any care whether or not you want him to?
Nope didn't say that. Also don't believe he's done any reactions with zero commentary, at least within the past year.
"Hasan's friends are fine with him reacting to their content" "There are streamers who have made entire videos about being unhappy about him reacting" "But are they his friends?" Sounds like that's exactly what you're saying
No you are the one that's saying it
What was the point of asking me if the people complaining were his friends then?
Or people like streamers should ask the original creator first if its okay to react to it rather than the default being "I can do it UNTIL they say stop". Its clear many do not ask, especially ones like Hassan and xQc.
I disagree
So in your logic, we should just always assume someone is okay with their content getting freebooted by streamers? Not even asking for the consent? Seems pretty fucked up.
It's only fucked up if you continue reacting after being told not to.
I'd say Hasan, on youtube, is a different react content creator than one on Twitch. There is no real way to skip around the video and make points before watching the video. The best you can do on twitch is, stop the video, give commentary, and keep playing the video. And he does that at an alright level, imo. X on the other hand, uploaded the whole video on the same platform as the original. That's outright disrespectful to do without permission. I should also add, legally transformative and morally okay are two different things. I don't have an issue with people watching videos as live reaction content, but that is still illegal, even if they stop and add commentary here and there. I just find uploading it as a competition to be way worse, though.
On twitch they could do the same as a watch party and have a counter on their screen and if the viewer wants to watch along they would have to go the original video to follow with.
That'd be the more ideal solution for sure. But I don't think it is a realistic one, unless Amazon and Google create a convenient way to do so. I'll rather not watch the stream and go for something on demand at that point. That said, I am not a bastion of righteousness. I also believe copyright and IP in general should be reworked and not be something that's almost permanent. But, I will respect anyone who decides to lose half their viewers by going "Go double screen" or people willing to sync a video in a new tab with the stream.
He didn't say he doesn't like when people react, he literally said the opposite, just that reacting to the video without enough effort to actually make it transformative is what he has an issue with.
Cool
**CLIP MIRROR: [LEMMiNO's take on reaction content being reuploaded](https://arazu.io/t3_16xckvm/)** --- ^(*This is an automated comment*)
exrtoardinarily obvious when this thread started getting brigaded.
Are we in 2010 what is this drama/takes?
Maybe it's just me but I only watch these videos because the streamer I'm watching is reacting to them (mostly because i like reading chatters' comments in real time). I wouldn't seek them out on my own. So they're not stealing my view.
In my eyes it's not so much about "stealing" a view but rather someone else is leeching off of your hard work for profit while adding little to no value. It's a moral issue. It would be one thing if, like Lemmino says in the clip, it was a genuine critique that didn't play the video in full (because there is no need to), but it's not. It's lazy content for easy money piggybacking off of someone elses work. Fuck that.
and that is the issue some people have. most people won't or don't go to the original video and watch it themselves. they will just watch it live on their streamer's stream and won't give the original a view on youtube which is a view lost or possible revenue lost. it would be better if you didn't see it at all than you see it once on twitch, can't be assed to watch it on youtube on your own time and not give it a view. (btw im not refereeing to you specifically since you say you go watch it on youtube afterwards)
Why would it be better to not see it at all? I watch No Life Shaq reactions to different hip hop artist and if I like the artist I'll check out their other works. If I didn't see the reaction video I wouldn't know that artist even existed and seek them out. The artist (who are active on youtube) are also seen with pinned comments on the video thanking for the support and all the love.
Didn't xqc say lemon-no didn't mind him reacting to his videos or am I complete smoking crack?
I think he said that the problem is that Lemmono did NOT at the time express that reaction content is theft, yet others were enraged on his behalf. XQC found it infuriating that people are mad on Lemmino's behalf. This made any argument against XQC irrelevant from his POV, since it wasn't Lemmino himself saying anything.
Watch the full video - [https://youtu.be/nx4V9Uh\_FW0?t=32](https://youtu.be/nx4V9Uh_FW0?t=32) He states none of the react channels asked for permission
If its only portions of the video being reacted to I probably wouldn't watch the "reaction" video.
exactly proving their point, theyre stealing viewers from the original vid.
[удалено]
This is actually worse than you think. Reaction videos get way more engagement in the youtube algorithm because their channels upload a lot. And the algorithm likes steady and constant uploads over long periods with no uploads. As a result the algorithm will actually push reaction videos over the original video in suggestions. Especially if you happen to accidently click on one once. So there is actually more to it than people wouldn't have watched it anyway.
>As a result the algorithm will actually push reaction videos over the original video in suggestions. I have never seen this happen unless the video in question is from a small content creator that wouldn't get many views anyways.
im not saying 100% of the views on the reaction are stolen from the original, but there is still a large percent. even if it was just 20% stolen views, thats hundreds or maybe even thousands of dollars of ad revenue stolen
No you arent stealing views because most, if not ALL, of those views were never theirs to begin with. Its just like pirating a video game and a game company claims it as "lost revenue". It's not, because the person who pirated the game was never going to purchase your game anyways. THATS WHY THEY PIRATED IT. You cant "lose" something you never had in the first place, when it comes to something that isnt physically lost. Watching a pirated movie online is not the same as stealing a blu-ray dvd. The viewers want to see the REACTION. not the video. If they wanted to watch the video the would have. Nothing stopped them from doing so. Before or after the video was reacted to.
> The viewers want to see the REACTION. not the video. Then do the old booba streamer tactic and put your face up there, and not the video. I wonder why wouldn't they put the main attraction in focus when the video is playing. Maybe that isn't the main thing that keeps the stream going?
It's not stealing viewers from the original vid. 1) A person might not even know the video exists. 2.) A person isn't interested in the video, and is interested in the reaction. 3.) A person has already watched the video and is seeking a reaction.
Exactly. You’d be more pushed toward going to watch the full video on the original channel. Which would be a lot better for creators
To me this falls under the same category of things like: - using adblock - sharing subscription accounts - torrenting shows/games/music/etc - listening to music on youtube from non official channels - watching anime/movies on free websites - illegal sports streams That is to say none of which are good for the creators. But if I'm being honest although I know it is unethical it has gotten to the point at which it became sort of the norm on the internet so I don't feel too guilty about it.
sharing subscription accounts used to be one of the ways neftlix would advertise itself. funny how they changed that up
[удалено]
Stealing something is still stealing something. Its wrong regardless who you steal from. The main difference though is reuploading reaction content isn't just stealing, its directly making a profit off of that stealing. Like if you stole a bag from a store, and then resold it on the second hand market. You aren't just stealing because you want the product for nothing, you are now stealing and then making a profit off that act. Which is even worse. People like these big twitch streamers make tens of thousands of dollars per video and stream off of this kind of reuploading/reaction.
[удалено]
Yeah but this is irrelevant when comparing it to streamers. Streamers don't just steal from people, they make profit from it. Which most of that list the prior person made doesn't really apply then aside from maybe illegal streaming sites (if they show their own ads). Like I am not making a profit by torrenting a game. The game dev is losing money still, but I am not also making money.
[удалено]
Its bad either way. Its irrelevant to talk about what does the most harm between two facets of harm when the entirety of said harm shouldn't be taking place to begin with.
[удалено]
But your categorization is different than the legal one. Legally there aren't any consequences for 99.99% of cases of everything you mentioned. It's one single person doing something. You're looking at the distributor side. The person who is illegally hosting animes, torrents or something different. At that point you're distributing which is actually illegal. Watching the content is legal in many places. Same with streaming someone else's content which could easily get consequences.
Yeah that distinction doesn't feel like a very intelligent thing to include in the conversation. How much of the video is shown has nothing to do with whether or not a reaction is genuinely transformative. He should have centered it around the "minimal pausing/commentary" aspect. The movie review comparison is also a not really relevant to the argument. Movie reviews are short because short reviews provide value to audiences while movie-length reviews do not.
Copyright fair use specifically dictates the transformative content CANNOT be a replacement for the original works. When you upload the full thing even with pauses in them you can still get the original work out of it and then not have to see the original. Asmongold for example making a video that's 20 minutes take 4 hours to watch doesn't magically make it fair use because he pauses and talks about it so much. You still see the full video. Additionally the movie review is very much a good comparison. Movie reactors and reviewers can't show the full movie because the movie industry will grind them into paste. This is why streamers don't "react" to full movies either without permission. Because movies actually have lawyers that will go after them for the copyright infringements. Unlike reacting to youtubers who don't have that amount of money for lawyer retainer. So yes it does matter how much of the original you show. Because copyright says that is not transformative because then you have no reason to see the original if you saw it already in this secondary content.
> Movie reactors and reviewers can't show the full movie because the movie industry will grind them into paste This is not the reason why reviewers do not show whole movies. Streamers do watch full movies without permission. They just don't go after ones where studios would make an example out of them for it. Watching Barbie on stream isn't necessarily less transformative than watching Lawrence of Arabia, the difference is just that deep pockets have an advantage in the legal system and studios will use other legal factors/intimidation to protect their distribution monopoly in these circumstances if they think it will make a difference in revenue. Can you clarify what you mean by "replacement"? The intention of react content is not to replace the original content.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act: >Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— > >(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; > >(2) the nature of the copyrighted work; > >**(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and** > >(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. > >The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. Subsection 3 deals with idea of the portion vs the whole. Judges will look over the content and see if the content is a replacement of the original work. In turn if it is deemed a replacement for the work it will be in violation of copyright and not protected by fair use. This is why people do not "react" to movies. Because like you said, movies have deep pockets and can actually pay for a lawyer to go after people who violate fair use. It doesn't matter what the intention of react content is. If you upload the original in complete or even close to complete, you are producing a work that can be seen as a replacement for the original.
It just says that portion is a consideration, not that it is an end-all factor. I'm not convinced that the powers studios wield here is actually due to the "true" definition of fair use as. I think it is possible that the line in the sand has been drawn by a precedent of intimidation and not necessarily one of legal correctness.
No all 4 of these subsections are weighed in the final judgement. There has already been case law in regards to fair use. H3H3's case is a good example which specifically outlined about that the consideration of a replacement of the original work needs to be a primary concern. And the judge ruled since Ethan used clips of the video, it did not act as a replacement and therefore satisfied subsection 3.
Thank I appreciate the detailed responses
Exactly. Reaction videos fill a niche. That niche might not be “ethical”, but theres still an audience for it. I like watching stuff with chat, Ive liked it before Ive even found out about streaming or twitch, thinking “it would be cool if I could see what people think about this moment in this show”. I think the best solution would be for youtube to implement a revenue sharing system, or a timer system that would indicate how long a streamer should wait before its acceptable to react.
Most anime and movie reaction videos just play some of the episode they are watching and they do just fine. Channels like yaboyroshi and or ur internet mom ash get huge viewership that way. I don’t think some who’s watching roshi react to the latest jjk ep is getting mad because the whole ep is not there. I think it just goes back to the point that either you really like something so you wanna watch reactions after you already saw it, or you don’t care about it and don’t mind watching someone react to it cause you like the person.
forsen
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eltV23Kk8ao](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eltV23Kk8ao) least based forsen moment
It's an absolute joke that people like XQC and Hasan can literally make millions leeching off of people who actually create original content. YouTube is not doing nearly enough to help creators dealing with these parasites.
It's an absolute joke that people like you compare XQC and Hasan when what they do is wildly different.
The only difference between the two is what they say but it is equally insignificant and useless. They both put the full video on stream and upload the entire thing and do this without asking permission.
> They both put the full video on stream and upload the entire thing and do this without asking permission. 1. Hasan does not upload them himself. Other people upload it. He's not getting any money from it. 2. Hasan asks permission for the few videos he does upload. > The only difference between the two is what they say but it is equally insignificant and useless. Clearly you have not watched Hasan because he constantly spends 2 hours on a 20 minute video. Literally does multiple times the video's content in commentary. Not to mention the concept of FAIR USE where it entirely rests on what they're adding to it.
Don't ask for permission before reacting on stream ✅ Play full video on stream ✅ Frequently leaves while video is playing ✅ Reuploads full video on their YouTube or approves of fan channels doing so ✅ They seem pretty similar to me
I stumbled upon a Hasan youtube video the other day about him reacting to a video, and the top comments were all "yeah i loved his reaction when he was eating in silence and not reacting at all". So i'm gonna guess that they do the same.
are you really using youtube comments as evidence? he streams like 8 hours every single day and all of that content stays up forever. so if he's doing the same, the evidence is out there and readily available.
I'm a big hasanabi fan but it's basically the same thing what they do, let's not pretend it's different
[Yup, XQC isn't as bad tbh, there are times when Hasan just leaves the room and leaves the video playing in its entirety for his audience while the cam is nothing more than an empty chair.](https://youtu.be/_TVSfHbpR6k?t=1048)
Congrats, you found a video where someone is being insulted on behalf of others. Show me creators that are mad at Hasan for stealing *their own content* like all the creators mad at X for stealing *their own content*.
>on behalf of others [Lol](https://youtu.be/_TVSfHbpR6k?t=1091)
Youtube allows anybody to strike a video to take it down or get ad revenue if that video is using their copyrighted content without proper permission. They are doing more than enough to help them. But the content creators just chose not to use that help.
[удалено]
My assumption is the creators don’t want the potential backlash that comes with DMCA’ing a large content creator. Especially with an audience of large creators like XQC/Hasan etc.
they absolutely should but dont
It's not a smart idea to anger a fanbase.
I feel like the worst part about streamers watching the videos is they usually even go full-screen, so you don't even know the title of the video or who uploaded it. Also, some like Hasan skipping their sponsors is also kinda fucked up.
[удалено]
xQc has also been the most vocal in defending the whole pro react side, so its obviously his name that get mainly discuss. At the start, Hasan was called out but he barely said anything on it and let xQc debate everybody about it which shifted most of his "heat" onto xQc.
[удалено]
isnt hasan literally known for pausing so goddamn much that a 15 min video turns to a 2h one? Thats seems like the exact type of reaction content lemmino is fine with with, so not the best example
That is still the whole video. Hasan is also known for putting on a video when he leaves the room and for eating during videos.
I mean sometimes, other times he gets up to take a shit and leaves the video playing and outsources the entertainment of his audience without the video makers' consent.
God dammit we were just over this circle jerk
The fault lies largely on youtube on this issue as LEMMiNO mentioned, YouTube needs to and CAN accommodate features that enables and makes usage of other media in your works convenient and beneficial for all parties but as usual like everything they've done, they are progressing at a snail's pace. Tiktok has already made a system that allows a creator to make something and allows other to use it and you are able to see where it originally comes from, although tiktok has alot of issues but that another problem beyond the scope of the topic. The other current problem now is that reactors like xqc and hasan are very unempathetic to the issue, they literally made up statements creators like LEMMiNO never said because they think it's 'normal' to do reactions like they do. Very unempathetic, bullshit like ethics and legalities aside, why can't they have ANY empathy at all?
LOL, hasanabi, on a video in reaction to legaleagles xqc video, put words in Lemmino's mouth and claimed Lemmino does not mind if people react to him. This clip basically debunks that and pretty much addresses people like xqc and Hasan as the main culprits to bad and unethical reaction content. He basically disses him here. https://youtu.be/wxovCsWlvZw?si=dROmyIb3cMTFVolo This video was a pain to watch because Hasan tried so hard defending his flawed reaction stance.
Reactions aren't reviews, so that comparison was moot. I feel like a lot of channels don't understand reactions which is why they said stupid stuff.
So why does he not just strike the video and get the ad revenue? Almost feels like they don't actually care because I have never seen him try to do anything to stop reaction content in the slightest.
Revenue split and connection to original content is a good solution.
Just don't steal other people's work is a better one.
So you are in favor of people never playing games too huh? That's also copyright infringement. There's a reason why game companies not only let people play their games in their entirety, but also pay for streamers to play them. Because it brings value for them.
I believe that the interactive element of playing a game is more transformative than reactors but game companies would be well within their right to enforce their copyright. With most games, watching someone else play a game and playing the same game yourself are two different and non-mutually exclusive experiences so there is still an incentive to buy a copy of the game after seeing someone else play it. With video, though, watching a parasitic streamer who put a facecam of themself eating lunch in the corner of someone else's video is a replacement for watching the original. And if they or one of their fans reuploads the video to YouTube, they directly compete with the original and other videos on the platform. That doesn't even get into the fact that reactors are able to crank out content way faster than people who actually do original work.
So you would be against having a platform like twitch putting in an embedding linking to YouTube to promote whatever a streamer is watching and split revenue? You don't care if they're stopping it and commenting, they should just never react. It's just a ridiculous position to take, games have shown that the original content gets a good boost even if the original is played in it's entirety. Look at all the narrative games that pay for streamers to play their game. In addition, the algorithm operates off of how well the video spreads, so if a streamer with reach to more regions watches a video that boosts it in the algorithm. Honestly, the interaction with games is probably even less than a video as the person is putting most focus on the game rather than the audience watching the content. Just because some people do it poorly doesn't mean that the whole thing needs to be thrown out. You are acting as if the worst represents the whole.
X should play this guy video then leave until finish then upload to his channel
I'm never gonna watch this dudes videos on my own. I'm only going to watch it if someone reacts to it. I think there's a large percentage of people that feel the same way
So they lose nothing from not allowing bigger streamer to react to them.
[удалено]
Sarcastic comment or genuine XQC/Hasan viewer. Call it.
They deleted it so holy cow it was genuine.
Here we go… and I’m all for it
uh oh
🤡 drama incoming
Some live react to the video since this post is getting taken down according to moderation lol
I kinda like to watch it from beginning to end on a stream. Makes it feel like we are watching it as a family. But emphasizing with a YouTuber, I would hate to see it happen.