Are Reaction Videos Ethical? 

yes. Even when watching the full show, I usually wait for the timestamps and just go through topics I am interested in and skip the rest.

Well said. This is why I prefer 20-30 minute videos in general, and especially when time is limited.

Also because timestamps from a phone are clumsy, in fact consuming long form content from a phone is clumsy in general. You can put a clip into Watch Later. My history just shows that I viewed a given episode, not which clips I saw or paid attention to. Short clips give you a natural pause that lets you take a break and switch to something else. I get completionist pangs about clicking away from a long video 20 minutes in. Plus, back in the 80s and 90s, sometimes I just wanted to turn off my brain and have something playing while I decompress. In those days, I'd plop down on my couch and channel surf. Much as I hate the Algorithm, especially when tech oligarchs manipulate _it_ to manipulate _me,_ letting your recommendations feed drive your viewing is the modern equivalent of channel surfing.

asmongold is the worst thief, all he does is react.

Also it works better internationally because of timezones...

@lovegaming4114 sure bud

Helps with millennial attention spans as well. I've watch LMG videos for many, many years including WAN show, but as I grow older, it's harder for me as an adult to sit down for that long to watch it even though I want to, there's just not enough hours in the day. These clips make me feel like I get more done. Every new video I click on has a renewed attention span lease per se.

@Love Gaming stop replying with spam and if you think your computer is actually in trouble, get some anti-virus and/or go post your issue on the Forum.

@@happinessiskey2858 They are probably just a bot but I'll agree that its really annoying lol

I really want to watch it too. Too bad it's at like 5 AM for me

It's a shame there's about 100000 of those for every reaction channel with compelling things to add

That's all reaction content is however. The "X reacts to Y" type of content only works if X has special insight, and in that case it's not that different from "X plays Y game" that happens to simulate their job. All react content, is ultimately lazy, meme-material. If you are doing react content, and only react content without reaching out and asking, then you're not even adding any value to it. And this is why you see a lot of compilation videos of random tiktoks, those exist "to react to", because lots of people on youtube and twitch don't use tiktok. Likewise RU-vid compilations of twitch clips. If you are live-reacting to something on Twitch, that is a different experience from "making a video of reacting to a video"

@⚠️Don't visit my channel That channel name is brilliant if you're a scammer. Now I'm tempted as fuck.

​@@Kisai_Yuki I highly disagree. React content is not about adding expertise. That's a different type of content. React content is where the viewer shares something that they like with someone who is seeing it for the first time. In which all behaviors of the person reacting are important because it expresses their feelings of what they are watching at any given moment. Why else do you think that "uncut" reactions are so popular that people are willing to pay money on Patreon to access them? Viewers don't care if it is (or want it to be) transformative. They want the original content+ the reactor's raw reaction. That's it.

@@R3_dacted0 That's not what is being argued here. Whatever the viewers want to see is irrelevant to the content that is being posted. React content does not provide anything useful, unless it is expertise. It's brainless content, which to be fair, is highly profitable and wants to be seen. But like Linus said, it's not like this is really helping smaller creators who try and say don't react to me and then get bullied.

Cinema therapy is a perfect example what a transformative work can be. Totally not the same content.

@@jimmypatton4982 The charismatic voice is a brilliant example of that.

A musician listening to a song and explaining the music theory or meaning of the lyrics or whatever, that isn't react content IMO and is definitely transformative enough to be covered again IMO. Same with someone reviewing a movie or even analyzing it and showing short clips here and there. However if they simply watch a video made by someone else, start to finish and don't add anything more than in the moment reactions, yeah in that case they should be required to get permission from the original creator. It shouldn't even be a question. You couldn't do such a thing with a movie or a TV show, so why would it be okay for a shorter form youtube video? It's still an original and copyrighted work is it not? That said, I have watched stuff that would fall under the latter category. I have people who make their own content that I watch, and if they make a video reacting to another video, yeah I will find it interesting. But just because I watched it doesn't mean I think it should be allowed across the board, they should get permission or not make the 'react' video. Simple as that.

@@charliericker274 I watch people who react to songs and give their opinion on them, and I actually enjoy that content, I like to see people discover new music, and see what they think about it. They analyze it but not to the level that vocal coaches, etc do. But I still think it is valuable. But however, one thing that ALWAYS happens is one of two things: The videos get stopped before getting posted, so they know it is gonna get blocked, or they get DMCA'ed and taken down, or what happens most often, is that the music flags the money going to the copyright owner, as you will see it being credited to the artist in a standardized format below the video.

Well said! The time management aspect is a big one for me as well.

I actually just download it on my phone and listen to it like a podcast while I'm working

I will watch the entire show if they have a mega topic or something, but I'll watch the clips that interest me. I used to leave the show on the second monitor and watch it Monday morning, but the clips work just as well and I get to skip the boring stuff.

I like multi hour content I can listen to while working. But I can see how someone who is watching in their spare time, wouldn't want to sink in so many hours.

if he does what you're describing it's not react content. it's another thing. react content is people staring at a video while the video is playing and maybe throwing in one or 2 words sometimes.

@@MrA6060 check teeaboo, he will do what you describe and then speak for 1 hour or os about it, all out of 1 20m episode, 100% valid reaction content, and mainly what it should be.

I remember awhile back it was discussed that certain RU-vidrs were being targeted by music labels. I think Rick Beato is one of them. The crazy thing is that Rick Beato has connections in the music industry.

There are several in the music reaction scene actually analyzing and diving pretty deep into the stuff they react to (TankTheTech, Elizabeth/TheCharismaticVoice and Michael Palmisano immediately come to my mind), and several artists have openly praised them for what they do and collaborated with them in interviews, livestreams and actually in providing content for them to react to. So the reaction scene in itself is a spectrum too.

yeah but even lazy react content is still widely beneficial to the music scene. whereas pretty much every other art form, react content is mostly theft especially for people on the platform whose entire identity revolves around being a reactor

Same man linus is just too based

it was pretty garbage for a bit.... but its returning to form.

I've never been able to watch it live, and had no interest in watching the full vod afterwards, but the clips mean that I can watch the sections separately, though it does mean I'm missing out on some of the content

can't agree more (or disagree less? dang how do these words work)

@@OfSheikah Disagree less sounds hostile for some reason

What can they do, it brings in a lot of views

The RU-vid channels love reactors. They're free to DMCA the reactions if they want

@@MasterKey2004 Those views would just go somewhere else on RU-vid. Doesn't matter to them that these particular channels have these particular views.

@@MasterKey2004 youtube should offer video pass through, where it identifies the original and shows up the views on both videos and gives like 70% to the original. It's their own platform they should be able to do this fairly easily

Finally, someone who gets me.

This is the same for me. Clips are so much more easily digestible for me

As a person with ADHD 7 hours vids are my favorite one (i do have ADHD but this is still a joke don't ping me if somehow someone finds this offensive)

Tl;DR but I did read the comments reacting to it

@@ScipiotheAfricanus that’s honestly normal. ADHD can be better framed as a lack of ability to control your attention. Most of the time this looks like a lack of attention at all, but sometimes you play the same video game for 12 hours straight, or watch the entire 7 hour video in once sitting lol (this can also show up as you _finally_ getting to work, and someone comes to ask you a simple question and you get as annoyed as they just told you a stranger’s cat just came in your house and pissed in your shoes. There’s a certain about of effort going into beating that resistance to getting work done, so when you finally get past that and someone comes and interrupts you…you just don’t have the energy to really engage normally so your anger/frustration drives the response…the same way it probably is what is driving the work in the first place, because it won’t get done unless you berate yourself into a frenzy and finally work) Personally, if I am actually watching, I like the clips show, if I am at work then the long-form episodes are great because I _need_ background noise when I’m doing boring tasks or I will get in my head and mess something up because I’m just…not always capable of paying attention to what I am doing. I try really hard, but you get that moment at the last second where I lose focus and drop something or something slips out of my hand or whatever (ah, reliving childhood trauma. Yes dad, it is hard to hold a flashlight sometimes. Idk why. Yeah I guess there is just something wrong with me. I know you never had these issues as a kid. I wish I was different)

It also helps when you want to comment on a specific topic without the fear of the comment getting lost on the sea of comments about the other topics of the show. But it probably will get lost in the sea of comments anyway, but there is a chance it wont :D

I was thinking the same thing. I almost feel bad for Jinx. It is weird how much hate he got when now Pokemane, Hasan, Critical, XQC and ASmongold all do the same thing everyone claimed to hate Jinx for and no one cares

@@doomdimensiondweller5627 There is a difference between what some of those streamers do, versus staring at a video and offering little to no opinion on what is happening. Asmon gets shit all the time because he'll turn a 20 minute video into an hour long reaction. I don't think that's comparable at all.

@@Chopstorm. That honestly doesn't track cause Asmongold said it himself that he wants all of his reactions to eclipse priority with the algorithm while using other creators to do so. Asmongold has always had an ulterior motive for why and how he does his reactions. He's not anymore different than Critical or Hasan. They're both in it for the easy money and they're running to the bank while playing in people's faces.

@@wangdangatomictango Provide a link for that statement?

@@wangdangatomictango asmongold channel should be banned ..lazy content

I just came from a reaction video to Ren's 'Hi Ren'. He's an unsigned artist and therefore youtube is likely a more significant part of his income than for a signed artist (at least that's what I expect despite being truly clueless on it). But Ren has been active in the comments of most of the reaction videos i've seen, and has, I believe, even made a list of each of the reactors that have covered him on his own website to promote them. The release of that particular song by Ren is the first time I've really wanted to watch react videos (it had significant impact on me personally and I wanted to see how others took it too), but the whole phenomenon is still kind of bizarre to me. It is certainly of dubious legality, and now I don't really know if it would be to the benefit of specifically musicians to get rid of them altogether. A few weeks ago, I would have said they rarely offer value to anyone, now I just don't know if that's true.

@@rikiba851 the legality in many cases is dubious at best. But the actual law doesn't really matter, what matters is what the copyright holders want. A number of music reacters do offer added value to the viewing though. Equipment used, song technique, composing patterns. Then there's the shared emotional experience too. Emotions do amplify similar emotions.

@@Irthex Yeah, the added value is definitely there for some music reactors i've seen. The one i watched earlier was Michael Palmisano, and I came away from it with a small lesson about diminished thirds, and a book recommendation. With others, the shared emotional experience is exactly what I got, and wanted.

Watching reactions to the ending of Lorna Shore’s ‘into the hellfire’ is brilliant.

Reacting to music is a bit different than reacting to a video content, since music is more replayable

I love that! One of the reasons I love the retro/synthwave community is because so many of the artists are DMCA safe and one of the channels I follow (Nightride FM, maybe? can't remember exactly, but I've got it bookmarked somewhere... lol) even has a running list on their site of artists who have explicitly spoken on their stances with citations for each.

You are referring to the document titled "Mlp Reaction Permission List" from 2016. "IDEA MADE BY BRONYMONSTER44 & PIEDISLIKERSWAG. SPECIAL THANKS TO PEGAJEN FOR HELPING!"

@@stragerneds Late to reply, but yes the list from Bronymonster44. That was the list I was referring to.

And her venturing in the world of Will Ramos was amazing given those videos she made. I agree with you

Video game commentary channels have been asking that since it's inception, basically around the time COD4 came out and Capture cards and microphones were getting cheap enough. But RU-vid seems to see that as too much effort and go for an All or Nothing approach. That's basically what Machinima was created for, to fight legal battles for a new precedent.

@@thepaddedcell8140 I'm more for 80/20 in favour of the original creator. One had 15min of effort, the other at least 15h.

@@Alias_Anybody sometimes is weeks of work for a reactor to play it in one sitting while sometimes not even watching it. Also a lot of these big reaction channels as soon as anything gets claimed they will rather take the video down or private it than let the claim (no copyright strike, just claim) go thru .

@The Padded Cell This is late, but I have to reply. The vast majority of reactors would be overjoyed to get 50% of the ad revenue. At least 90% of their videos are copyright claimed and they get nothing. That's why they all have Patreon and push it, because if they had to depend on ad revenue, they'd starve.

@@mikkj1this is just plain wrong because Everytime reactors get a copyright takedown they make a big deal about it on socials Wich they wouldn't if it happened often

youtube will soon implement that soon once their multi-language audio system works out

I dunno, that sounds like effort. Which these reaction channels don't like.

@@SparrowwithaMachinegun Yeah, I could definitely see some channels not wanting to do it, mostly because it requires some effort from them and also because they would need to divide revenues with the original copyright owner (which they, currently, don't), but if it was done to avoid legal confrontation between 2 parties, then I could see it being beneficial. But then again, if the original video creators are small parties, then there's just no incentive for the reaction channels to comply (since small creators don't have the means to engage in legal actions against reaction channels), unless RU-vid took serious actions to prevent this blatant use of copyrighted material under a supposed "fair use" to take place, which I'm not seeing it happen any time soon.

The issue with this idea is that it blurs the line between a fair reaction video and a video response. If the line is too tight on seeing the length of the video, then react channels will cut small parts and make off with the revenue. If the line is too loose, then channels which are video responses to other channels content would be flagged as reactionary content when they clearly aren't.

Another oversight of this idea is content that is not available on RU-vid, such as TV shows or movies, that sometimes people react to and that could not be linked to, since it's not on RU-vid to begin with.

​@@alderstifen7738 Yup, that surely is an issue too, but it's still preferable that the original creator gets some revenue this way, rather than nothing at all (or much less than they could be getting, because there are some reaction videos that instigate people to go watch the full video).

Exactly! I love watching professional musicians/producers react to a song and explain what’s going on so I can appreciate it more. I love watching chefs react to cooking videos and expand on the things we see so I can understand why that person made these choices or why a certain technique was used.

If they take the whole original work then it is still unethical. You don't have a reason to check the original content creator because you allready saw his entire video. You should check darkviperau 's videos about react content. They are very explicit in how react content is bad, and he tackels it by every way of looking at it.

Pretty much this. I really love it when people in the know weigh in on clips or music that love.

@@Killmaster7 Yep, but in that case, what is the chance of viewer conversion? What would be the upside for the original poster? If you were unlikely to see the video before, the chance that you now decide to go and watch other videos from the same original poster is minuscule. I know that I have myself seen many many reaction videos in the past and I rarely watch more videos of the same original creator. Linus mentions this around 9:15. This isn't a problem when the reaction video is transformative and actually adds something of value to the original video. And by this I don't mean a guy sitting there reacting to it live and laughing every so often, pausing the video and telling a joke or giving some shitty and unimportant opinion. But I mostly mean creators that watch the video beforehand, provide constructive criticism or additional important information to the original work.

@@twanlange2827 "Jetlag the game" saw massive growth from Ludwig reacting to it on stream. They are part of nebula/curiosity stream and the platform saw the highest number of signups in a day ever the first day he watched it on stream. There are a ton of people I watch on youtube because of streamers/reaction videos. Just because the pipeline does not work on you does not make it not work. Summoning salt is another good example he wants streamers to watch his videos since it always leads to new people learning about him liking his content and watching his back log of videos. Obviously people should respect the creators wishes, but I think in general react content does legit help the original video creator. I do not think there would be so many sizeable creators actively promoting streamers watching their content if they did not see it working on the backend.

@@Aritcheyy Just because the 'pipeline' works for you doesn't mean it works either. Either way the argument isn't that if a reacter hadn't watched a video that all of the views they got on their reaction would go to the original video. The argument is if reactors didn't exist the views and the money they get would go to people who make their own original content. You could argue that in that case the total amount of users/hours watched would go down but there's really no way to know for sure.. Anyways watch DarkerViperAUs videos if you really care

@@_Riux Im alright not a fan of him after his attitude about the GTA no hit run got finished by someone else first. Just his arguments around that are enough for me to care 0 about his opinion on anything else.

@@Aritcheyy so just because he was mean one time his argumentens arnt valid? Or are you just putting ur fingers in your ears and going lalala, and are using this as a cheap way to not watch a different perspective. That might change how u see react content

darn it you have made me found the answer as of how Linus would interpret the ideal reaction content welp not watchin this clip full now, thanks

"Pretty much it" does this pretty well I think. They have audio commentary that you can play along side your own copy of a movie. There youtube videos also included clips of there commentary alongside the clips footage of the movie (definitely fair use, edited down, not a full replacement to the movie etc..)

A few of the Twitch channels I watch said they feel uncomfortable if they don't pause and at least try to make commentary on it. Also, plugging the original video is a big help. I recently saw a random channel 10x in subs because their video was watched and the video linked in the description and shouted out.

@@Matkatamiba Pausing a video occasionally is very weak justification. Sure it makes them feel better, but it's not going to make all the stolen money and views go to the original creator. Just because you stole a thousand dollars, an insignificant feel-good donation to charity won't make it any less of a crime. And subscribers don't matter. I'm subscribed to a hundred channels that I don't get a single recommendation from, because I don't watch their videos actively.

@@Matkatamiba Do you remember The channel name?

@@Creepus_Explodus you can point out how pausing in lieu of fair use is weak justification but you cant also deny how traffic and discoverability works on the web. You can make the anecdote of not coming back to channels you sub to, but your experience wouldnt reflect the rest or all of users especially for example from mainly twitch to yt. I pesonally wouldnt have cared for a lot of topics / channels have i not been exposed to them through twitch or other third parties, im sure there are others who reflect my sentiments as with yours but you cant just deny third party exposure exists or subs dont matter - if youre content is good, people will keep coming back, even the chance for that happening is worth something and even smaller creators struggle to get. I feel the system could be cleaned up and just on a by youtube platform basis you can make embedding / react parties have more of a designated system than just a dm / claim here type thing (this is obviously an oversimplified approach to a problem id say is more complex than youre making, but while i dont hold the answers i mean to not say there arent problems on both sides and there needs to be clearer standards / a change in the system). On a by etiquette basis (for now, should be the norm tbh), i think creators need to make it clear who made the video and link to it.

@@itsyeaboi5333 If it really worked that way, then react channels wouldn't grow. They would die out as their audience goes on to watch the original creators. This is clearly not the case, as the top "reactors" on Twitch are constantly growing, showing that the viewers would rather watch along with somebody eating in the corner, than to seek out the original content. If you actually cared about the video being watched, wouldn't you want to watch it undisturbed on your own? Yes, you pick up topics that you like, that's how humans work. You can't like something without first being exposed to it, and these "reactors" act as content curators. A tiny fraction of people will actually seek out the source and explore beyond what is shown on stream. But the vast majority will sit in chat, and tell the streamer to watch the new video uploaded by a channel, rather than watching it on their own. But again, you can't justify theft with an insignificant donation. The "reactor" gets the views, they get the paid subscriptions and donations, and they gain the long-term audience. The original creator gets a tiny fraction of the viewers who either had the decency of giving something back, or were genuinely interested enough to seek out their content instead of being in their favourite zero-effort streamer's chat. You get pissed when a large corporation steals from their workers and their customers. Is the parasocial relationship with the hopes of your favourite streamer noticing you in chat enough justification for the same theft? These streamers steal from the original creator and exploit their audience for donations - all while doing no work whatsoever.

This is the ideal solution. I remember there being a website a few years ago that did this for watch-a-longs on Netflix. The viewer of the stream had to login to their Netflix account and it would do picture-in-picture video that was synced with the host.

This is is still not enough because it still steals the subs of the original creator

@@wolfbad512 I can think of a couple of things to do about that. Maybe they could have a system that autosubs you after you have viewed a certain amount of their content. Alternatively, have the sub button list the original creator first. You could also reverse my imbedded video idea so that you can only view reactions from the original video page.

@@pcnoad I still don't like the idea of reactors profiting a lot from other ppl works in every other situation where ppl put the entire video in their own video they copyrighted but here you are trying to find a way to let them keep making lazy content that will always hurt the one reacted to

@@wolfbad512 If you paid attention to my original post I specifically proposed not having the original content within the reaction video. The reaction video would only be the reaction itself. The video being reacted to would have to be viewed from it's source. My last proposal required you to watch the original video from the source page with reactions as side content. I understand that you may not find value in reaction content, but a lot of people do. It's interesting to see various perspectives. I've watched a lot of reaction videos to movies I own. It's like reliving the movie for the first time all over again. I agree that reaction videos should never be a market substitute. I just think why not find a technological solution rather than ban something people enjoy. If we want to talk about the effort put in and how much it's worth, all I can say is that I can't control how much others choose to spend on that kind of content. I have yet to pay anyone for a reaction, but evidently some people do. Ultimately that's up to the market to decide that. Why not automatically have a portion of the money made by the reactor go to original content creator?

Only one thing to add. The channels that do the analysis and breakdowns are good. I've seen channels that sit through songs or just make some generic "whoa"/"no way" remarks just to breakup the video.

Doesn't really matter if it's beneficial to the original creator. If they don't want it then it's up to them.

MTV stopped showing music videos because the recording industry wanted MTV to pay them, instead of the recording industry paying them to show music. MTV ceased to exist as a "Music" channel in 1998. The problem with react content is that the recording industry wants you to pay them for even having the audacity to have music on your channel, and it flies in the face of how people actually use music. A youtube channel is not a radio station, and people are not going to use it as a replacement for listening to the music on like itunes, unless that music isn't available to begin with due to incompetent licensing by the recording industry.

@@hop-skip-ouch8798 yea there are clearly 2 different types of those music reactions there are the lazy ones that are fake as fuck (like some 50 year old being like "listening to michael jacksons thriller for the first time") and then i've seen some kid listen to full hiphop albums with his dad and after each track talk a bit

I usually do a musician interview, then create a playlist with some of their songs and the interview placed towards the middle. Not a massive driver of views, but I think it strikes a good balance.

So the content thief gets his content stolen by another content thief. 😂

@@4m4n40 exactly

I don't think 50% is even enough, for most reactions it should be close to 95% to make it even remotely fare, which would make react channels unviable. The worst part of reaction channels is not the impact on the creator they are reacting to, but to the whole youtube market

@@amrosk but isnt 95% quiet a lot if you contribute to the original? Like a expert react to

@@itsdarkos I'm saying this in relation to those "insightless" lazy reactions, if you are doing a transformative use, of the bare minimum of the original content then you shouldn't have to pay at all, as it is fare use. A revenue split only make sense for reactions that don't fall under fare use, in that case it should be up to the original creator to set how much or opt out of such system. I said 95% just to illustrate that for a video that took, let's say two weeks to be made, a 50/50 split would be extremely unfair if all the other part do is give minimum commentary over it.

@@amrosk Ohh yes i see. your right

I also watch ads without clicking on them

asmon is pretty good at "transformative" though, he can react to a 15 min video and then talk about it for the next hour - although he watches the entirety, that's true

@@aonodensetsu Oh I 100% agree. I love Asmond. I think he is probably one person you could argue does it "right"... BUT, I am definitely guilty of watching a full video on his channel not giving the view or sub.

Or better, see his chair's opinion on this

It isn't Google's job to adjudicate points of copyright law; that's the role of the courts. If content is posted on their system by someone who doesn't have the right to post that content, and if the rights holder files a request to take it down, then Google is obligated to take it down. Their adjudication power only stems from verifying that whoever filed the request really owns the copyright, and that the posted video really infringes upon it. You either have the right to post something or you don't. If you don't, it shouldn't be left up at all. Anything else gets worked out in a court of law, or is negotiated and agreed to by the channel and content owner. Partial rights schemes like Linus proposed 1) violate US/Canadian/EU/etc law, 2) gives a private company's discretion (Google) the power of a court. A partial claim system involves lots of arbitrary calls for people to argue over. Is it 8.5% or 9.0% in this specific case? 3) That gives the side with more legal resources even more power than under the current system, and 4) it gives said private company (Google) discretion to make rulings, which will always be for the side more in its corporate interest. You can already sue for damages if you own content that got violated via a chip-eating "reaction." Linus's complaint is that this is poorly enforced and small content owners can't defend themselves against big channels with big legal teams, but just adding more complexity and layers of adjudication to the system makes the whole thing even worse. If I can't afford a legal team to defend my viral video rights in a court, how are things better if I need to spend even more dollars and months wrangling with Google for a year or two before I get to make my case in front of a judge? This also incidentally gives way more harassment power to the _much_ more serious problem of content owners using legal muscle and frivolous takedown notices to harass people exercising legitimate Fair Use.

Counterpoint: Rambling for 8 hours after showing a movie in full. It's only 15% of the video! Rambling for 8 hours in between the movie and having "a random fan" post the timestamps to skip the rambling. People already circumvent the rules, you cannot codify this in a fair and objective way.

@@theprogram863 Google could literally just change the terms of service to make a rule of "if a reaction video uses a video from youtube for youtube, then that original content creator is entitled to a split of the ad revenue". By the wave of a magic wand they could update the terms to accept that within reason, other people on the platform is entitled to make reaction content out of it. The algorithm could then provide you with video suggestions from the original creator, even. This whole thing just feels to me like Google lacks the legal creativity to make the most out of the situation as it is now. People watch reaction content not just for the personality, but also the curation.

@@Korvmannen If it doesn't qualify as Fair Use, then it's a copyright violation and Google doesn't have the legal right to bypass the DMCA process and the courts. I mean, they could physically do it, but the first rights holder who takes them to court would get the whole process shut down. TOS don't take precedence over federal law.

@@theprogram863 - It does though. RU-vid posts videos from creators on Facebook and more without asking for permission. They are _already_ doing it, and adding a partial ad revenue claim to reaction videos seems fair *within the platform itself* . If it's on Twitch that's not the same.

daily does of internet posts mostly memes or 10 seconds of interesting video with random author who doesn't really make anything from posting this video online (except for maybe likes). While someone like let's say internet historian, does 1 video per year and would like to get his time back in money, it's his job. Someone like xqc does 10h of sitting and watching documentary videos with real work behind them (and memes) and posting it on youtube without chaning anything, like cutting video to only include portions where he adds something from himself. For penguinzo does it and it doesn't take away reason to watch video which he reacted to from viewers. Also multi-part videos are almost always watched by streamer in the same stream, or as soon as it comes out, so why should stream viewer go watch said series by himself when he could watch youtube's video reaction alternative with same content just cut the parts where you do nothing you lazy mf

@@MKKL1 yeah most streamers usually don’t add much to content they usually are just reacting to fill hours of their obligated stream time.