Support NeoGAF

[Subpar Spatula]

So you're essentially saying it's okay to break copyright law because people are lazy and don't want to go to the effort of 'syncing up videos'?

Are they breaking any copy-right laws? Can you show me with precision how they're doing this?

It's not lazy, it's the audience has an easier time enjoying it if they understand the entirety of it which is why I brought up Twitch VODs: a lot of the pleasure comes from the chat as well and the chat don't appear in VODs.

 

[Dio]

Are they breaking any copy-right laws? Can you show me with precision how they're doing this?

It's not lazy, it's the audience has an easier time enjoying it if they understand the entirety of it which is why I brought up Twitch VODs: a lot of the pleasure comes from the chat as well and the chat don't appear in VODs.

How about the example I posted on the first page?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjpLvXw0tBY

There are thousands of these people on Youtube.

Do you seriously, SERIOUSLY think that Madhouse, the anime studio who commercially made this product and is currently selling blurays of their content as well as being in a partnership with Daisuki, is okay with this guy doing this? Did he get permission? Is he in a rights agreement to stream an episode of it?

Do you know WHY things get copyright strikes for violating copyright law on Youtube? It's not arbitrary, it's because that content is either toeing the line or violating copyright law. Tons of these people are specifically trying avoid the Youtube copyright system, and putting your face next to a smaller version of that video makes it less likely that it'll automatically recognize you're using commercial content.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but it exists for a reason, you know?

In fact:

http://www.cnet.com/news/legal-liability-for-youtube-viewers/

Copyright infringement in the United States strict liability offense. What this means, is that users are liable when they illegally copy works, even if they're not aware that this is wrong, or that the work is protected by copyright

 

[Subpar Spatula]

How about the example I posted on the first page?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjpLvXw0tBY

There are thousands of these people on Youtube.

Do you seriously, SERIOUSLY think that Madhouse, the anime studio who commercially made this product and is currently selling blurays of their content as well as being in a partnership with Daisuki, is okay with this guy doing this? Did he get permission? Is he in a rights agreement to stream an episode of it?

This isn't what I asked for. You're appealing to emotion and not fact.

 

[Dio]

This isn't what I asked for. You're appealing to emotion and not fact.

I edited the post with more info.

You do realise this is Youtube's upload policy, right?

"Important: Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts, or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you created yourself."

 

[Chabbles]

you remember a few years ago there was that french chick that would do videos talking nonsense but the videos were labeled as discussion on some current event?

I remember that shit!, What a flashback. She had big boobies and put on the ditzy blonde act, and did "educational" videos about random topics. I remember seeing her on a fox news interview a few years ago for whatever reason.

 

[Androidsleeps]

So sad people can't handle others success, so what they found an audience that likes their opinions enough they can put up their reactions? That is why people watch their videos, to see their opinion on something. Yet we have these sourpusses basically making reaction videos to their reaction videos to bitch and whine about it. Who are these people to decide what is good enough content for youtube and to try and dictate what others enjoy?

Because these 'reactionists' are hack frauds and they should be called out for what they're doing?

Imagine you make a short film say about 10 minutes, then a 'reactionist' stream that entire video on the corner of their 12 minute video where they basically spend 1 minute in the beginning introducing the video they're reacting to and the last minute saying "hope u liked it dont forget to sub and like hehe" and through the entire short film they nod, smile and occasionally make faces or giggle.

Seriously these people are making money off of this?! No wonder they shit out couple of videos everyday to their audience of mostly children who would watch anything buzzing on YouTube. No wonder the "I Hate Everything" channel is pissed, as him and others like YMS go through a shitstorm of copyright crap for legitimate reviews/reactions of content like movies and shows.

It boggles me that some people in this thread are defending these reactionists. YouTube is filled with shitty channels like those vloggers who tape themselves eating at a restaurant, getting starbucks and walk around their houses. But at least those people are making money off of their own shit, and not at the expense of others' content without any sort of meaning commentary, discussion or editing.

 

[jstripes]

After a bit of thought, this is what I came up with to explain the popularity of reaction videos:

"I don't have any friends, so I'll watch someone watching something I like so I can pretend they're watching it with me."

 

[Alienous]

After a bit of thought, this is what I came up with to explain the popularity of reaction videos:

"I don't have any friends, so I'll watch someone watching something I like so I can pretend they're watching it with me."

I mean, if you want to reduce it to that, then sure.

You could probably make a better argument in the same vein for people who go on online message boards, though.

Because these 'reactionists' are hack frauds and they should be called out for what they're doing?

Imagine you make a short film say about 10 minutes, then a 'reactionist' stream that entire video on the corner of their 12 minute video where they basically spend 1 minute in the beginning introducing the video they're reacting to and the last minute saying "hope u liked it dont forget to sub and like hehe" and through the entire short film they nod, smile and occasionally make faces or giggle.

Seriously these people are making money off of this?! No wonder they shit out couple of videos everyday to their audience of mostly children who would watch anything buzzing on YouTube. No wonder the "I Hate Everything" channel is pissed, as him and others like YMS go through a shitstorm of copyright crap for legitimate reviews/reactions of content like movies and shows.

It boggles me that some people in this thread are defending these reactionists. YouTube is filled with shitty channels like those vloggers who tape themselves eating at a restaurant, getting starbucks and walk around their houses. But at least those people are making money off of their own shit, and at the expense of others' content without any sort of meaning commentary, discussion or editing.

The bolded is the issue here.

"at the expense of others' content"

If that were true you'd have a valid point. The question is whether or not that is true.

I see no reason to believe that reaction channels harm the creators of the source content. That is only the case if the following occurs:

The number of people who would have watched the source content if a reactor hadn't made a video on it > The number of people who are introduced to the source content by the reaction video, and go on to watch the source content and other videos from the creator of the source content.

The first of those, 'The number of people who would have watched the source content if a reactor hadn't made a video on it', is likely a much smaller number than the second.

 

[Moofers]

I don't give a shit about who is making money off of what, I'm just annoyed that there are people who think its good entertainment to watch somebody break down in tears over the reveal of some fucking Smash Bros character.

"OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD! CLOUD IS IN SMASH?!?

OH MY GOD! OH MY GOOOOOODDDDDDD!

WHAT?!? WHAT?!? OH MAN OH MAN!!!

I GOTTA CALL IN TO WORK TOMORROW.....WHAT?!?

WHAT?!? OH MY GOOOOOOOD!

ARE YOU SERIOUS!?? THIS CHANGES SOOO MUCH!"

All that while they clutch at their chest or put their hands on their head like they are just absolutely stunned. I mean you'd think fucking aliens just landed or Jesus returned but they are losing their GD minds over a Smash Bros reveal.

I think its all just so....weird. I don't get it man. I really don't. I understand passion, I do, but it seems like there is a reaction video for everything now. FFVII remake? Yeah I get the excitement for that. Shenmue 3? Yup. With ya there! But Cloud in Smash is just sort of a weird thing that you wouldn't expect to get such a reaction.

OH MY GOD THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A REUNION FOR MAD ABOUT YOU?!?

ARE YOU SERIOUS!???!? OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!

 

[Alienous]

A character associated with PlayStation being announced for Smash Bros getting an excited reaction makes more sense than people being excited about David Cage's Shenmue 3.

 

[jstripes]

I mean, if you want to reduce it to that, then sure.

You could probably make a better argument in the same vein for people who go on online message boards, though.

Sure, if all you do is lurk.

 

[Androidsleeps]

I mean, if you want to reduce it to that, then sure.

You could probably make a better argument in the same vein for people who go on online message boards, though.



The bolded is the issue here.

"at the expense of others' content"

If that were true you'd have a valid point. The question is whether or not that is true.

I see no reason to believe that reaction channels harm the creators of the source content. That is only the case if the following occurs:

The number of people who would have watched the source content if a reactor hadn't made a video on it > The number of people who are introduced to the source content by the reaction video, and go on to watch the source content and other videos from the creator of the source content.

The first of those, 'The number of people who would have watched the source content if a reactor hadn't made a video on it', is likely a much smaller number than the second.

I'm not arging that it's necessarily harmful to the original poster in terms of views, but it's still not okay.. Like one of the videos pointed out it is copyright infringement and not fair use of intellectual property. Do you think that if one of thoae reactionists "reacted" to a Taylor Swift MV in the same way they're "reacting" it wouldn't be pulled down in few hours?

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

Reaction videos are the bain of my existance. I cannot wrap my mind around how people can watch them without tearing their eyes out.

People gain vicarious enjoyment from seeing others enjoy what they've already enjoyed. It's basically a contact high for them.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I'm mainly baffled that people watch these without realizing that most of them are incredibly fake. I get watching someone's reaction to something and how that might be enjoyable, but so many reaction videos are so exaggerated and put on that I don't know why anyone would want to watch them in the first place.

 

[cDNA]

I don't understand how this are not detected as copyright violations by the Youtube system, while other channels get flagged for much less .

 

[Stallion Dan]

If someone did a reaction video to any original content I created and 80%+ of the video included my work I'd copyright strike it, or content ID it as mine, give me that viewing money.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

I don't understand how this are not detected as copyright violations by the Youtube system, while other channels get flagged for much less .

Many actually do get pulled down, just comes down to whether a company is really trying to go after them or not. Which is why sometimes you'll see some of these have the video shown reversed or obscured, along with the audio muted, etc. I'm actually surprised the One Punch Man stuff hasn't been hit yet, but sometimes anime companies can lag behind. Hell, just recently TFS had all their DBZ Abridged stuff down and they had to deal with Toei to clear it up, and those have been up for a long while.

 

[openrob]

GradeAUnderA done a video about this as well:
Why Reaction Channels Are Shit (Jinx and CJisSoCool)

After I watched it I realised exactly why reaction channels are terrible lol. Same reasoning as posted in this thread. Funny, well edited reactions are cool, but tis whole, 20mins of nodding whilst streaming the full content is just bad at least, and content theft at worse.

Saying that, I have done a reaction video, and it was good fun (and got wayyyy more views than expected lol). It was for the Shenmue 3 announcment. And stuff like that I really enjoy, watching the suprise people get when someting them love is announced etc. But I think that is a little different that 'react to random funny thing' - mainly because people are NOT watching it for the reaction, they are watching it for the content

 

[PsychBat!]

So sad people can't handle others success, so what they found an audience that likes their opinions enough they can put up their reactions? That is why people watch their videos, to see their opinion on something.

jeez

It's like no one watches the videos criticizing these guys. Or even the "reactors" themselves.

Where is everyone getting this imagery of people providing insight or different opinions on the videos they react to when it's already damn clear most of these assholes don't do this? Jinx and CJissocool or whatever the fuck his name is are very clear examples of what "reactor" culture is on YouTube nowadays.

And who said that making a reaction video takes effort? Give me a break, it's just pointing the camera at you while watching a video on the internet. Syncing the video with the sound in editing is also not a big deal. It's just ripping the video off the internet and pasting it in the timeline of your video editing program. All you have to do is process it and you're done. "But processing t-takes t-t-t-time and I dont wanna wait that looooong, it takes too much time" and that's pretty much what it is. It takes TIME not effort. If you think waiting for a video to finish processing in whatever video editing program you have takes effort, then you're just impatient.

@Alienous Unfortunately, you also cannot prove that these reaction videos are NOT siphoning views from the original content. Give this video a moment of your time. It's about facebook views and how this one person is actually putting videos from other people in to his videos and not giving any credit. While sure, you can say that it's facebook and it's not comparable, it's not illogical to assume that reactors can actually affect the views of the original content on youtube if this happened on facebook. Give it a watch at least though. You might not appeal to the humor or something but he points out shit that goes on on the intertubes.

 

[ZackieChan]

I'm gonna start doing reaction videos of me reacting to reading copyright complaints. I feel like it could be huge.

 

[Kinyou]

Out of curiosity, how did Mystery Science Theater 3000 do it? Did the original movie creators get a cut? I feel like the situations here are pretty similar.

Edit: just found it myself on Wikipedia. They had to get the rights for every movie. So in that instance talking over the movie/having something else on screen wasn't deemed transformative enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_Science_Theater_3000#Home_video_and_digital_releases

 

[Subpar Spatula]

I edited the post with more info.

You do realise this is Youtube's upload policy, right?

"Important: Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts, or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you created yourself."

I asked for precision not what you wrote.

YouTube's policy isn't copyright law. It's a general guideline for their service.

 

[PsychBat!]

Out of curiosity, how did Mystery Science Theater 3000 do it? Did the original movie creators get a cut? I feel like the situations here are pretty similar.

Difference is, MST3K provides commentary.

 

[Cyan]

Out of curiosity, how did Mystery Science Theater 3000 do it? Did the original movie creators get a cut? I feel like the situations here are pretty similar.

I'm pretty sure they have to get the rights. My understanding was that that was why it was kind of tricky to do a kickstarter for more episodes.

 

[Kinyou]

Difference is, MST3K provides commentary.

They also alter the image with their silhouettes though. And do you really think they could have gotten all the movies for free if they had just pointed the cameras at themselves and made the movie screen smaller?

 

[ZackieChan]

Out of curiosity, how did Mystery Science Theater 3000 do it? Did the original movie creators get a cut? I feel like the situations here are pretty similar.

Difference is, MST3K provides commentary.

I believe MST3K got a license to use the movies they used. The "commentary" doesn't allow you to use the ENTIRE film in your show. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of Fair Use.

Edit: And "altering the image with their silhouettes" would have almost no effect on a fair use analysis, imo.

Here's an interesting post, but hearsay - http://forrestcrow.proboards.com/post/1051192/thread

I asked for precision not what you wrote.

YouTube's policy isn't copyright law. It's a general guideline for their service.

Fair use is somewhat imprecise. It's impossible to give a blanket answer, since the specific circumstances of so many videos are different. Precision is not possible.

Do you have a specific example?

 

[Fat4all]

Out of curiosity, how did Mystery Science Theater 3000 do it? Did the original movie creators get a cut? I feel like the situations here are pretty similar.

While MST3K was at a local station they made fun of movies that the station had the rights to show on cable anyways, previously those old bad movies were used to fill time on the stations.

There were similar deals made later while they were on Comedy Central and Sci-Fi, but they occasionally needed to buy rights separately for certain movies.

Difference is, MST3K provides commentary.

More times than not there are Reaction videos that provide commentary in some form.

 

[yanipheonu]

Feels like something that could use a 50+1% rule. Footage should be mostly the reactors to be considered most a reaction video.

Games are different though, since a large part of the visuals are the performance of the people playing it.

Stuff like this really puts ideas of copyright into question. Might need to seriously rethink what "ownership" of media is as we get more stuff like this and let's plays.

 

[Dio]

I asked for precision not what you wrote.

YouTube's policy isn't copyright law. It's a general guideline for their service.

No, of course not. However, YouTube policy is in place to keep YouTube from being held liable in a court of law for being HOST to said violation of copyright law.

As it stands, currently it's illegal:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/are-streaming-sites-legal-2014-4?r=US&IR=T

When the user downloads even part of a file — called "pseudo-streaming" — it counts as a copy of copyrighted material, which is illegal. And when the user streams content as a "public performance" — namely, when it's shown to a substantial number of people outside the normal family circle and its close acquaintances — it also constitutes a copyright violation.

Outside of these cases, accessing unlicensed streamed content is generally legal.

That last particular sentence refers to the viewer, not the uploader. And here we get into the meat of it:

On the other side of the screen, however, uploading or posting unlicensed streamed content is illegal — even if it's free, according to Gibson. "That's the most basic part of copyright — protection of your work. When someone uploads a video online, they're literally making a copy," he said.

 

[rainking187]

I like watching reaction compilations when someone dies on The Walking Dead, but I couldn't imagine watching someone react to an entire episode.

 

[Cyan]

While MST3K was at a local station they made fun of movies that the station had the rights to show on cable anyways, previously those old bad movies were used to fill time on the stations.

Ah! I'd wondered how it worked when they were just starting out.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

No, of course not. However, YouTube policy is in place to keep YouTube from being held liable in a court of law for being HOST to said violation of copyright law.

Then be proactive and do something by sending out emails to the actual owners. It's a difficult position because you have to argue it's not transformative.

 

[PsychBat!]

They also alter the image with their silhouettes though. And do you really think they could have gotten all the movies for free if they had just pointed the cameras at themselves and made the movie screen smaller?

As I understand, the rights of the films they riffed on were acquired by the cable networks and some other times the copyright documentation of the movies were incoherent or had some obvious holes that they could get broadcast rights easier than others.

Also, there are public domain movies.

More times than not there are Reaction videos that provide commentary in some form.

Again, I have to ask the people defending the reaction videos, which reaction videos are you talking about? Because if you're talking about the ones that were listed in the video in the OP, then nah.

 

[ZackieChan]

Then be proactive and do something by sending out emails to the actual owners. It's a difficult position because you have to argue it's not transformative.

YouTube doesn't have to argue anything. They have pretty broad rights to get rid of content per their Terms of Service. And they certainly do what they want to protect their ass to keep their DMCA safe harbor.

 

[Alienous]

@Alienous Unfortunately, you also cannot prove that these reaction videos are NOT siphoning views from the original content. Give this video a moment of your time. It's about facebook views and how this one person is actually putting videos from other people in to his videos and not giving any credit. While sure, you can say that it's facebook and it's not comparable, it's not illogical to assume that reactors can actually affect the views of the original content on youtube if this happened on facebook. Give it a watch at least though. You might not appeal to the humor or something but he points out shit that goes on on the intertubes.

There's no logic behind thinking it's siphoning views, is my point. It's a biased outlook, because you'd have to ignore the possibility that a reaction video might contribute views to the source video or other videos from that creator.

As for the video it is a different subject. Taking videos from one source and reuploading them somewhere else, even on the same website, is a sucky thing to do. It is also a different situation to the reaction videos in key ways that I don't think require explanation.

The thing that gets me about this is that some time ago video game companies placed harsher restrictions on how they'd allow footage from their games to be used. All of the big YouTuber's rallied against it. There seemed to be a spirit of freedom, shunning companies exterting a didactic control of things just because they could. Now we have no good argument for how reactor channels are harming anything yet negative sentiment from many of the same YouTuber's who would have suffered from video game publisher restrictions. It's not coming from a place of logic, it's coming from a place of jealousy.

 

[Fat4all]

No, of course not. However, YouTube policy is in place to keep YouTube from being held liable in a court of law for being HOST to said violation of copyright law.

Google already has copyright protective software for detection purposes, and that helps prevent full movies from getting uploaded (even though people attempt to upload them constantly). When it comes to these reaction videos, they are most likely a decent percentage of the staggeringly larger amount of videos uploaded per day. They would need greater human interaction to view each contested video, submit them to checks for copyright infringement, then take them down if they violate those rules. If they go to a more automated procedure, there is a larger chance for blanket takedowns of videos, whether or not they violate any copyright laws.

It's something that's certainly needs to be addressed. In the case for things like trailers there is an argument that reaction videos are bulk positive exposure to an advertisement, but yeah it gets really grey when it comes to other content. This is something that the Let's Play community is still trying to figure out with game publishers.

Again, I have to ask the people defending the reaction videos, which reaction videos are you talking about? Because if you're talking about the ones that were listed in the video in the OP, then nah.

There are countless more than the few in the OP.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

But I think that is a little different that 'react to random funny thing' - mainly because people are NOT watching it for the reaction, they are watching it for the content

Believe it or not, there actually are people who really like said random funny thing and are watching it for the reaction - a lot of those more random vids are requests from commenters asking said Youtube person to react to it. It's not Shenmue 3, but maybe that random person really digs it as much as you like other things.

I'm not saying this is the case for everything, but a lot of the vids chosen are because of specific requests.

 

[PsychBat!]

The thing that gets me about this is that some time ago video game companies placed harsher restrictions on how they'd allow footage from their games to be used. All of the big YouTuber's rallied against it. There seemed to be a spirit of freedom, shunning companies exterting a didactic control of things just because they could. Now we have no good argument for how reactor channels are harming anything yet negative sentiment from many of the same YouTuber's who would have suffered from video game publisher restrictions. It's not coming from a place of logic, it's coming from a place of jealousy.

It's not the same thing though. You're equating people with companies here. As if they made the revenue these video game companies have. They are not a corporate entity, they are people who post their own hard work on youtube (it may or may not be monetized) and then these "reactors" post the same video on their channel with their face on the left or right of the frame and make the video they watch easily watchable because it's big enough to see and make about nearly the same amount as the original content. Again, the original content may or may not be monetized, and if it isn't then that's doubly worse.

There's no logic behind thinking it's siphoning views, is my point. It's a biased outlook, because you'd have to ignore the possibility that a reaction video might contribute views to the source video or other videos from that creator.

There's no logic in to thinking that they're not. Like I've said a few pages ago, why would anyone want to watch the original source when they've already seen it on the "reaction" video? I'm not just talking about trailers and commercials or news reports, I'm talking about animations (where animators really struggle trying to make videos for little reward in the first place), comedy sketches, and movie/tv reviews.
Sure, you can argue that these people put the link of the original video in the description below (assuming you have seen any of the people listed in the video in the OP). But lets be realistic, who even reads those? And how many if there are people who do? That's impossible to find out.... unless you read youtube comments. Sure, there's a whole bunch of toxicity to behold down there so you may not want stick your head there, but if you do you'll see there are a bunch of uninformed assholes there posting shit that is contradictory (even outright ignorant) to what is explained in the description.

There are countless more than the few in the OP.

I know that. That is not what I asked though.

 

[Fat4all]

I know that. That is not what I asked though.

Tyrone Magnus is a reaction channel in which the person give commentary during the video, and also discuss (on certain videos) before and after the video.

Many of his reaction videos are much longer than the videos he is reacting to, as he fills the rest with his own content or discussion.

 

[diamount]

I can't help shake the feelings that in the bigger reaction channels (FineBros) is that they are actors, like in those prank videos.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I can't help shake the feelings that in the bigger reaction channels (FineBros) is that they are actors, like in those prank videos.

They practically are actors, most of the people finebros gets are either youtube personalities or even the teens tend to have established youtube channels. Half the time you always hear someone say 'Oh hey I've seen this before!'. Which makes the old people react videos the best because they usually have no idea what's happening.

 

[PsychBat!]

Tyrone Magnus is a reaction channel in which the person give commentary during the video, and also discuss (on certain videos) before and after the video.

Many of his reaction videos are much longer than the videos he is reacting to, as he fills the rest with his own content or discussion.

I like Tyrone. But unfortunately, he has done that kind of thing people are complaining about before. He still does it, not in all his videos mind you, but he still does it. He's getting better, but he's not safe from critique YET.

 

[diamount]

They practically are actors, most of the people finebros gets are either youtube personalities or even the teens tend to have established youtube channels. Half the time you always hear someone say 'Oh hey I've seen this before!'. Which makes the old people react videos the best because they usually have no idea what's happening.

As in they follow a script given to them by the FineBros. That includes the old people.

 

[Fat4all]

I can't help shake the feelings that in the bigger reaction channels (FineBros) is that they are actors, like in those prank videos.

As Breezy said, they might of started more innocuous, but they are practically actors by now.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

As in they follow a script given to them by the FineBros. That includes the old people.

Oh, that part I doubt. From the cutting it's obvious there's times where some people just don't have reactions that they aren't included alot in the video, and there's things like the old people react playing MKX and trying to win a tournament between them.

That, and usually they're asked questions about what they just saw which naturally when it's a weird video, usually everyone has thoughts. To script out people reactions when these people tend to be established and already have a personality would be...egregiously hard. Like, at that point it's scripting a persons reaction to fit their already established personality that they have in another channel. The reason these people are usually in their videos IS because they're established elsewhere, like they can naturally react and act to things, they wouldn't need a script.

 

[diamount]

As Breezy said, they might of started more innocuous, but they are practically actors by now.

It's a shame, I guess spontaneity becomes impossible after a certain amount of times.

 

[Fat4all]

It's a shame, I guess spontaneity becomes impossible after a certain amount of times.

There's also a connection between the "reactors" and the audience. I'm sure certain people are brought back more if the viewers like them.

It was fun watching them react to The Last of Us for a bit, because it's obvious by how they played they weren't very used to video games in general, but it was more of a curio than anything.

 

[Speevy]

I have no appreciation for the thing this person in the OP's video is criticizing, nor do I relate to the critic.

All these people are stupid.

 

[Alienous]

There's no logic in to thinking that they're not. Like I've said a few pages ago, why would anyone want to watch the original source when they've already seen it on the "reaction" video? I'm not just talking about trailers and commercials or news reports, I'm talking about animations (where animators really struggle trying to make videos for little reward in the first place), comedy sketches, and movie/tv reviews.
Sure, you can argue that these people put the link of the original video in the description below (assuming you have seen any of the people listed in the video in the OP). But lets be realistic, who even reads those? And how many if there are people who do? That's impossible to find out.... unless you read youtube comments. Sure, there's a whole bunch of toxicity to behold down there so you may not want stick your head there, but if you do you'll see there are a bunch of uninformed assholes there posting shit that is contradictory (even outright ignorant) to what is explained in the description.

No, again, there is logic in thinking that they are not.

It's all the people who would have watched the source video if the reaction didn't exist. They came into the situation with an interest in both.

vs.

All the people who see a reaction video and watch the source video or other videos from the source channel because of the reaction video. They came into a situation with just an interest in the reaction video.

There's no reason to think the former group is bigger than the latter one.

 

[ZackieChan]

No, again, there is logic in thinking that they are not, and that they are actually helping.

It's all the people who would have watched the source video if the reaction didn't exist.

vs.

All the people who see a reaction video and watch the source video or other videos from the source channel because of the reaction video.

There's no reason to think the former group is bigger than the latter one.

There's actually a very logical reason - once they've seen it once with the reaction, WHY would they go back and watch it again? I'm sure the vast majority have seen it once and are done. That is taking a view.

Regardless, in a fair use analysis, the burden of proof is on the "fair user," rather than the copyright holder, to show that the potential market isn't harmed (IIRC). Harm to the potential market is assumed.