Articles, Blog

YouTuber Extortion? MxR Plays v. Jukin – Real Law Review // LegalEagle

January 16, 2020


100 Comments

  • Reply LegalEagle January 14, 2020 at 11:33 pm

    © Are MxR’s videos are fair use? If so, why?
    🕹Get the 11 Myths of Online Copyright for FREE: https://www.copyrightcourse.com/myth

  • Reply Doctor Pain January 16, 2020 at 10:59 am

    Juken must use watermark on the videos they represent because as these are "viral clips" they are most likely surfacing over the internet and people definitely are going to share things they find amazing. It was the case with MXR…. they used the clips from their submission channel on Reddit where a random person might have uploaded the video to react on. It could even be someone from Juken Media to bait them who knows. but if there was watermark this situation could be avoided. Then again one could easily crop out the watermark and use it as bait. so, I guess Youtube must come out with something or ban reacting to video altogether.

  • Reply 300ml January 16, 2020 at 11:00 am

    Is it possible to represent yourself and not pay attorney fees?

  • Reply SMALLZ January 16, 2020 at 11:00 am

    This ain't extortion lol YouTubers make money off their shit and if jukin owns the property it's their right to demand payment. People make content without consideration to legal rights of others.

  • Reply Sk0lzkiy January 16, 2020 at 11:03 am

    Inb4 Internet as public domain
    I'm afraid if you leave a book on public square it doesn't become a part of public domain either. Learnt it the hard way ;(

  • Reply N B January 16, 2020 at 11:04 am

    This might be an unpopular opinion but as soon as the first strike for 2k came up i would pay up and buy the license from them.

  • Reply João Rangel January 16, 2020 at 11:07 am

    How can we the public fight against a business like Jukin Media?

  • Reply Mark Goldsmith January 16, 2020 at 11:11 am

    How are they meant to know that certain videos are under the index of a certain company?

  • Reply Gercho-San Andrade January 16, 2020 at 11:14 am

    The only thing I get from this is that attorneys fees are stupid…

  • Reply samthevictim January 16, 2020 at 11:20 am

    Due to MxR I've come to learn about this channel right here, LegalEagle. I have to say: I'm impressed. This is a completely unbiased review and the setup on how you present it truly impresses me. I've subscribed because I like hearing intelligent and educated people talk. Well done, sir!

  • Reply TrynePlague January 16, 2020 at 11:20 am

    Well, looks like the Internet kind of won given that MxR posted a new video a few hours ago updating us with a positive outcome. Kind of, because we don't know what exactly was decided but still, feels like a victory.

  • Reply Roger Elzenga January 16, 2020 at 11:21 am

    "They are going to keep extorting us" How about making your own vids? instead of bieng reaction andys? Do a day in the life of: , or Go to a national park and be arkward in nature …. there is sooooo many thingsd you can do instead of reacting to viral vids ….

  • Reply Wisdom Pen January 16, 2020 at 11:26 am

    THE QUARTERING?! GOD NO DONT EVER LISTEN TO THAT GUY ABOUT ANYTHING ESPECIALLY LEGAL ADVICE!

  • Reply KuraMad2000 January 16, 2020 at 11:32 am

    I coulda swore you were Ryan Reynolds wearing heavy makeup so you could moonlight as a lawyer >D

  • Reply Rodrigo Fsc January 16, 2020 at 11:37 am

    Youtube changed and you can remove the clips even after you posted the video if someone tries to steal from you.

  • Reply DarkMWB January 16, 2020 at 11:37 am

    You mentioned that this wasn't legal definition of extortion, but you never commented on the fact that Jukin Media threatened to take down MXR's channel

  • Reply Christopher Staples January 16, 2020 at 11:45 am

    jennie spends half an hr before uploading to see if there's anything that belongs to Jukin media , issue is Jukin media do not tag their videos correctly for you to find things in their database nor will they notify you what clips are theirs , also Jukin media could buy the rights to the video long after it was uploaded as a reaction video

  • Reply Douglas Jordan January 16, 2020 at 11:49 am

    Fair use is the pass interference of the youtube landscape

  • Reply Doug McCool January 16, 2020 at 11:49 am

    I don't quite grasp the idea of copyrighting memes. Disney doesn't sue every Facebook user that uploads a picture/gif of Baby Yoda. Why would a picture be different from a clip? The memes are almost always NOT the original clip, but some altered version of it. It seems in this case, public outrage replaced the legal system, which sounds horrible, but using the legal system has a bar to clear for entry (it costs a lot of money). If you can't afford it, you'd have to just roll over, and many entities seem to rely on that.

  • Reply AruthaSilverthorn January 16, 2020 at 11:49 am

    Hi @LegalEagle, what is the position on obscuring the ownership of IP? MXR's main claim is when they see a video for example on Reddit it is close to impossible to know if it is owned by someone such as Jukin, and as Geni says the search process can never be comprehensive in the internet.
    There probably can't legal definition for this but I feel like spending hours per video searching for whether something is copyrighted should work in your favor in terms of determining if you approached the video with intent of fair use.

  • Reply eSdeSe January 16, 2020 at 11:54 am

    All Hail to the Panda 🐼🐼🐼🐼🐼🐼

  • Reply Ennis Del Mar January 16, 2020 at 11:55 am

    who is it you look like, a mix between johnny sins and the guy from biographics but with hair

  • Reply Frost Soul January 16, 2020 at 11:55 am

    So you're telling me that a media company is copyright striking videos that are "owned" by the company? the problem here is that these clips are extremely short and no logical media company would consider them profitable, and they wouldn't want to own them if they can't turn a profit. Plus there is no real way these reactors could have known who owns the clips since they are most likely on multiple accounts that aren't owned by Jukin Media with no watermarks or labels to show who owns them. I'm willing to gander that Jukin doesn't actually own any of these clips and are likely taking advantage of the current state of YT where everything is getting hit with copyright.

  • Reply KuZaL80 January 16, 2020 at 11:59 am

    What would the case be, if Jukin Media had bought the right for the said clip from it's rightful owner after MXR had already posted a reaction video about it? Would MXR still need to buy a license or have legal complications?

  • Reply Alcatraz Schneider January 16, 2020 at 12:08 pm

    So tldr is to get a lawyer if you want to have a job on youtube reacting to stuff, and cut videos up and comment more

  • Reply superbadgerdoom January 16, 2020 at 12:09 pm

    They don't mark their videos. How are you supposed to know to buy their licenses in the first place? It seems like a trap.

    Also don't you see the high price of legal defense to be an unfair mechanic that favors large companies? You have to be rich to actually have your legal rights enforced it seems.

  • Reply Infinite Lifeline January 16, 2020 at 12:15 pm

    Ngl u look like an alternate timeline for deadpool

  • Reply TheBjornax January 16, 2020 at 12:21 pm

    Isn't it kind of ridiculous that the length of the clip works reversely in the favor of people trying to abuse copyright law? The longer the "clip" the less likely you are to be able to press claims against people, so just owning a very small but noteworthy segment makes it easier to catch people with copyright claims. Did I get that right?

  • Reply Bláde January 16, 2020 at 12:21 pm

    Thank you for the clarification Harvey Spectre

  • Reply Yale Michael January 16, 2020 at 12:24 pm

    This was an incredible insight into copyright laws thanks legal eagle you got my sub

  • Reply noth606 January 16, 2020 at 12:24 pm

    Now jukin is known as a bunch of dicks forever, anyone who looks them up will find probably hundreds of people calling them every name in the book. Also from what I understand they had to back down and piss off, and likely from now on no one will pay them and just sick the armies of people who hate them on them.
    Bye bye Jukin useless troll POS. Learn to produce something yourself that isn't just grief for others.

  • Reply Jimmy Morris January 16, 2020 at 12:26 pm

    I cannot believe videos of these two cute lil Asians lazily watching other people's videos and saying 'oh wow' is content. Wasted bits!!!

  • Reply droid8613 January 16, 2020 at 12:31 pm

    Does this count as free legal advice? Eh? Eh?

  • Reply Death Vision January 16, 2020 at 12:32 pm

    I would have sent them middle finger and ask would they want that in cash or…?

  • Reply Grimsie's Corner January 16, 2020 at 12:39 pm

    As full time YouTubers wouldn’t you just pay for the content you want to react to and then claim it on tax at the end of the year?

  • Reply lemler 3 January 16, 2020 at 12:46 pm

    MxR huh i always did wonder how they got this far using other peoples videos

  • Reply DIRT4649 January 16, 2020 at 12:49 pm

    One law for the rich and one law for the poor… same ol same ol.

  • Reply Bilboswaggings19 January 16, 2020 at 12:50 pm

    I hate reaction videos and Jukin, both for a long time… I hope they both lose

  • Reply Jack Adams Daniels January 16, 2020 at 12:55 pm

    I AM NOT YOUR LAYWER 😂!

  • Reply The Tankist Duckson January 16, 2020 at 12:59 pm

    Aren't they also connected MxR Mods. That channel that uses borderline porn for thumbnails.

  • Reply Thunder Warrior January 16, 2020 at 1:04 pm

    There is something that the law don't take in to account here. Jukin media made Jeannie cry (i know i know, they didn't brake any law's here). However, now they are running from the Internet mob……. And last i heard, they are settling outside of court. The lesson here is, don't ever make Jeannie cry.

  • Reply Xanthius Drake January 16, 2020 at 1:05 pm

    Your kind of making an idiot of yourself when you say MxR should get a lawyer. Uh hello? a lot of the money they are spending is going into med school so that his girlfriend can be a doctor, which you should know is very expensive. Getting a lawyer can make matters worse for them, since these kinds of things are also very expensive. Even if they are potentially making as much money as you say, that money will go away VERY quickly. On top of al of that, there are also bills and other things in everyday life that the money goes to, and if you were to add it all up, you may start thinking things a little differently.

    Forgive me for the rudeness, but these are factors you may have not considered. But is it fair use on what MxR is doing? in a way yes, they are still using the clips for entertainment, the viewers still get to see the clips and also get to see what MxR and his girlfriends opinions are, so its basically similar to watching those clips with a friend, you get to hear other opinions other then your own.

    Plus, even if Jukin says they have a price for the license of using those clips, and if someone were to pay the amount, where does that money go? it most likely is kept in Jukin, and the owner of that clip gets no percentage of that payment at all.

  • Reply Stefan Voorhout January 16, 2020 at 1:06 pm

    If all else fails, you will be surprised with how many problems can be solved with a baseball bat.

  • Reply Christian Fetz January 16, 2020 at 1:06 pm

    So…. 38 minutes compressed in 1 sentence: Keep it as complicated as possible, so everything can be right and legal AND wrong and illegal in the same time.

    In the end it depends on the judge at the court and how much money and time you have for the lawyers. Right?

  • Reply Dalton Riser January 16, 2020 at 1:06 pm

    if iremember the name right this isn't the first time jukin has went after a youtube channel unless thiscase hasben aroundlong enough that this isn't the first time its been in the news cycle
    EDIT: ah well you did talk about that later into it

  • Reply Steven Olson January 16, 2020 at 1:11 pm

    Jukin is desperate for positive press.

  • Reply Surume Man January 16, 2020 at 1:11 pm

    He's lowkey roasting low quality reaction videos hahaha

  • Reply Dalton Riser January 16, 2020 at 1:11 pm

    so I have watched couple of your videosbefore andI'll admit I wasn't able to get into them I think I just wasn't a fan of yourreaction type videos but this video is really wellmade

  • Reply Jason Hopkins January 16, 2020 at 1:12 pm

    It is my understanding that Jukin claims via email to have made a retroactive license offer available to MxR in the past in order to resolve this issue. Wouldn't it make more sense for them in terms of PR to offer that resolution first rather than threatening independent content creators with sums Jukin knows (or at least suspects) the creators are unlikely to be able to afford? And I would argue that Jukin's lack of consideration of the power of negative press was exactly the thing that forced their CEO from Twitter. The market can resolve these issues long before they ever reach a court room. Also, can Jukin arbitrarily set the fee for alleged infractions, or is that another issue that would require adjudication to resolve?

  • Reply Dalton Riser January 16, 2020 at 1:19 pm

    so with how the commentary review type ofexample would go with using only what you needhow would this effect something like a commentary track where you are commenting over the whole movie as it plays

  • Reply Emmet Farrell January 16, 2020 at 1:19 pm

    If it was me, I would just delete all reaction vids and start a new slate

  • Reply Dallas Sukerkin January 16, 2020 at 1:22 pm

    Very interesting and informative, good sir, and you certainly showed how muddy these situations can get.

    As it ever seems, the wall we smack our noses into is the different between what is legal and what is just.

    Of course, the global forum that is the Net pollutes the waters even further, for what is right or wrong in the majorities eyes can override concern for what is legal. And, as Jukin has found out over the past couple of days, even a substantial business that treads on the wrong internet toes can find that their lawyers, in the short term at least, won't protect them from the consequences of their actions.

  • Reply Nico Spiral January 16, 2020 at 1:30 pm

    I actually recommend reading up on the ethics of creativity (you can find them at most art colleges). The general rule of ethics is if you use anyone else's material, the rule of 2/3's needs to apply, meaning the ending result needs to be 2/3's your own work, and at most 1/3 not yours (usually 1/4 is the most acceptable range of transformative material). The measurement can be kind of tricky depending on the product but as far as the general rule of creative ethics, rule of 2/3's

  • Reply GuldorPhotography January 16, 2020 at 1:33 pm

    I'm a photographer and my work gets stolen on a regular basis. I never really thought about going after those people, but maybe i should and if i do, do you have any idea where to start or a video to help people like me out? Since its mostly small channels or websites all over the internet and is it even worth it? Some of my work even got used in a housing scam and on amazon selling knock off products.

  • Reply Daniel Mullins January 16, 2020 at 1:34 pm

    I can't do this. Fair use blah blah blah. Its not that difficult. It's simply monetary. Are you profiting from your use of the media? If so, then you absolutely need to get permission to use it. Plain and simple. You can not use someone elses copyrighted property for financial gain without paying a royalty fee. Unless of course you have their written consent. Make sure you get that shit on paper because its going to be pretty hard to convince a judge that they gave their word. Do not go around using someone elses copyrighted media for your financial gain. Theres no questioning or grey space on that. It's illegal. If they find out about it they will send you a bill and you will either pay it or end up in court. So if you're out here on youtube and your channel is one of those that has been monetized……you better be on point with whose material your using and do your research on the best way to get permissions. These are not people like you who make these cute little bedroom videos. These are big corporations who have deep pockets and very expensive lawyers. They didnt copyright their media just for the heck of it. They did it with the hopes that someone would be dumb enough to use it in the wrong way so they could make more money from it. So, again, if you are using someone elses copyrighted material for financial gain….you absolutely 100 percent no doubt about it need to get their permission.

  • Reply InuHost January 16, 2020 at 1:35 pm

    Reaction videos shouldn't be on YouTube in the first place. People call themselves "content creators" when they're literally doing nothing but spamming the site by regurgitating what's already been released. It's like, why not make your own content?

  • Reply Dean Beck January 16, 2020 at 1:35 pm

    Junkin media are loosening the moral argument and are behaving as scammers 1500 for a clip what a joke maybe nothing to you but exceptional amount to most of us

  • Reply Benedocta January 16, 2020 at 1:37 pm

    Lazy reaction video creators don't understand copyright, color me surprised.

  • Reply Michael Tyers January 16, 2020 at 1:39 pm

    No one goes to MXR's channel to watch videos. They go there to watch the reactions to the videos.

  • Reply Josh Miller January 16, 2020 at 1:40 pm

    @LegalEagle Can you do a video about the NY bail reform spoken about in Mike the Cop's video?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn9l2V0xq6A

  • Reply shomoneuch January 16, 2020 at 1:42 pm

    You know bad apples ruins a bunch? Well my personal experience in is just this; lawyers are a cancer of society. Someone like me could never be a judge becuase I would never entertain probable 99% of the bs in the legal system. Let's call it what ot is. It's bs.

  • Reply Martin Decamerone January 16, 2020 at 1:43 pm

    Well seems they already got an agreement they r happy with, but all the others

  • Reply KridOCaign January 16, 2020 at 1:44 pm

    Objection!
    There is a valid claim of extortion is based on Jukin's threat of issuing sufficient copyright strikes to delete their channel. While the demand of payment is valid, the overtly stated threat of destroying their business through extrajudicial means is not.

  • Reply Aenonar January 16, 2020 at 1:44 pm

    Pretty clear that he's a lawyer through and through, no concept of money ^^' oh yeah, 6000$ is nothing, could easily be 600k or millions for using these few seconds long clips… wtf

  • Reply Stephen Howes January 16, 2020 at 1:45 pm

    The more I read the comments the more I see people don't realize how much money YouTubers make. It's not as much as you think.

  • Reply Nathan January 16, 2020 at 1:46 pm

    Big businesses know what they're talking about. But jukin lost in both the examples?

    Doesn't matter in the court of public opinion? Isn't the jury basically some representation or amalgamation of that?

  • Reply codec69 January 16, 2020 at 1:50 pm

    It's very clear imo: It is fair use without a doubt. If reaction videos aren't considered fair use like parody or criticism, it isn't cause they're not the same (they are), but cause the law hasn't caught up to current times.

    Jukin is a trademark bully trough and trough. Their whole business practice is making money of buying rights to stuff they didn't create and then overpricing it to people who want to use it. Fair use is a thorn in their side cause they see it as potential customers and luckily for them, youtube let's them exploit their flawed copyright system, so they can literally blackmail people into paying up even when they have no grounds for that, cause Jukin can harm them thanks to Youtube.

  • Reply TheArthurkan January 16, 2020 at 1:55 pm

    Most reaction videos are just rip off! Lazy content creators… the volcano clip may have a news coverage argument though if it was news

  • Reply gothicchocobo January 16, 2020 at 2:00 pm

    My thoughts on it is that you don't go to the MxR video for the clips that they show, you go to watch Henry and Jeannie; the clips are totally irrelivant. If you see a clip you like, that's a bonus, but you are not going to share the whole MxR video if you want to show others. Like they said they have links to the original video in their details box, and that's the video you are going to share because you are going to want to share a 'clean' clip. I'd put it under fair uses. But that is just my thoughts about it.

  • Reply Vedant Mhatre January 16, 2020 at 2:02 pm

    What happens if you get copystriked by Jukin For giving commentary on MXR's commentary on their cat video?

    Legal Trouble Jukin's way 😜

  • Reply Takahashi Fujihita January 16, 2020 at 2:04 pm

    Uhm, I saw these two in a Raid's ad, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them. That's all I want to say.

  • Reply gzkgzk January 16, 2020 at 2:05 pm

    So the lawyer's advice is to give more business to lawyers. Bias? A consultation yes, but not necessarily a legal battle.

  • Reply Tashiro Sato January 16, 2020 at 2:11 pm

    Can u review Jury Duty(1995) legal realizim

  • Reply glitchfizz January 16, 2020 at 2:16 pm

    "small guy getting pushed around"

    googles mxr plays
    sees net worth is 3.2 million
    stops caring about low effort react channels and their 'woes'

  • Reply codec69 January 16, 2020 at 2:19 pm

    "you're taking other people's content in order to make money of it" saying Jukin media ….talk about the pot calling the kettle black

  • Reply Reno Reins the BH January 16, 2020 at 2:22 pm

    To be completely impartial.
    Both Juking media and people who make reaction videos are thieves.

    Ofc favorite youtuber will have army of fans behind them, but you can't disregard fact they made living of copy pastas and that always had certain risks. While Juking media are bunch of toxic exploiters, who took on youtube dumb copyright rules.

  • Reply r Baron January 16, 2020 at 2:35 pm

    In terms of potential copyright infringement, you might look at lion's commentary of UNIX (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions%27_Commentary_on_UNIX_6th_Edition,_with_Source_Code). The legal issues involving this book, lead Andrew Tenenbaum to write Minix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX) which is in part what lead to Linux.

  • Reply Jake Cravens January 16, 2020 at 2:39 pm

    Wow I didnt even know I follow their mod channel

  • Reply Anton Kukoba January 16, 2020 at 2:56 pm

    Never heard of either MxR Plays or Jukin. First world problem I guess.

  • Reply MudRogue January 16, 2020 at 2:57 pm

    From my understanding under YouTube rules its fair use. Under any other understanding. Almost all the top YouTube review, commentary and reactions channels should be taken down.

  • Reply Craig Mitchell January 16, 2020 at 2:57 pm

    lol

    Legal Eagle – "I'm going to zoom into MxR avoid cp infringement". . . . video jumps into full-screen mode

  • Reply e21big January 16, 2020 at 3:00 pm

    TL;DR unless you explicitly buy or make the said clip – don't make a legal video out of it

  • Reply Lee Hawkins January 16, 2020 at 3:05 pm

    1. How can a business that makes deeply into 6 figures not have a lawyer?!?

    2. I like the principles of fair use, but it turns into unfair abuse for both sides when the attorney fees come into play—why can’t this be simpler, and why do all laws just get decided by all courts? Can’t we have specialized courts for tech, copyrights, and patents like we have specialized lawyers? This might drastically reduce the costs to have jurors who aren’t easily confused by these things because they already have experience and knowledge of the business. Even if juries just had 2-3 tech people/creators/ad buyers/etc. that could make a huge difference…and if judges actually understood more than just jurisprudence, but understood also how the businesses they’re hearing actually worked, maybe this stuff would be much more clear-cut, less likely to go to trial, and less expensive in the first place.

    3. Copyright trolls like Jukin are not what we need—but we could definitely use licensing agencies who represent copyright holders. Sadly we don’t even have this for commercial photography anymore since everything got consolidated and commoditized by two companies who don’t care about creators. We need old school agencies for photo and video creators who aren’t for trolling for easy money, but will help get license fees, ad sharing, etc. to be less tilted towards only the ginormous corporations. Creatives are naturally bad at negotiating and valuing their work—but when an agent can take care of the big stuff and everybody makes a decent part of the pie instead of just Google or Time or whatever, then the system will not be quite as slanted against creatives.

  • Reply FriedrichHerschel January 16, 2020 at 3:08 pm

    IANAL, but if I were a judge on that case, I'd have to side with Jukin Media, at least for the Volcano video. Everything you said about Fair Use just screams that MxR violated it in that case: core portion of the video and therefore most de-valuation, almost no own work done on it so one can hardly see a transformative effect. IF THAT is the quality of their other reaction videos, they are screwed.

  • Reply Sunshade January 16, 2020 at 3:11 pm

    Thank you.

  • Reply The Myke Show January 16, 2020 at 3:15 pm

    Nice tie

  • Reply Isaac Alonzo January 16, 2020 at 3:33 pm

    Stop creating cheap contento "reacting" to someone else's content and never worry anymore. So instead of paying a cheap 49 dollar license fee so you can make thousands off the views. Just because it's free to watch doesn't mean it's free for you to use it for profit.

  • Reply billscarnage January 16, 2020 at 3:33 pm

    My golden rule with copyright/fair use is, if you're making any kind of $$, you better CYA.

  • Reply Lagiacrus January 16, 2020 at 3:36 pm

    Why do i get the feeling that everyone is saying that fighting for your right is the worst thing to do?

  • Reply AmrHfz January 16, 2020 at 3:37 pm

    Nobody :

    M E : is that RYAN REYNOLD

  • Reply John Solomon January 16, 2020 at 3:37 pm

    Lol, *H*ila. Eagles are super American after all 😛

  • Reply jeremy phoenix January 16, 2020 at 3:38 pm

    Whoever sides with jukin media is obviously getting paid for it

  • Reply Arga Gabriel January 16, 2020 at 3:39 pm

    first of all, nice video, really eye-opening.

    in my understanding it's all because the open endedness of the FU clause. it was intended to protect copyright money in the fluid internet environment, this is already something that sounds impossible. the FU clause then become a "you'll know it when you see it" law. Which is then really unfortunate, because of how dynamic the internet is. even your description of factor 3 somewhat contradicts factor 1.

    this in turn creates a grey are/preying field for predatory companies like jukin. you said it yourself they could have just asked for 200$ if MxR had a lawyer that arrange jukin to sign. the mechanics of lawyer and law then should not diminish the fact: it doesn't have to be 6000$. with this we can agree that jukin is actually the greedy POS they are.

    However, this highlights some thing about copyright law in america. if winning is the same as losing, then something is really wrong in america. this is part of the problem.

    on another hand, rich youtubers should really lawyer up.

  • Reply TheOakFather January 16, 2020 at 3:40 pm

    https://youtu.be/8y2KgBdhXbY
    Interesting case that goes the other way? YouTuber legally covers a song, implementing drastic creative changes.
    Major television production then performs the cover version without consulting the cover artist.
    Thoughts?

  • Reply MravacKid January 16, 2020 at 3:44 pm

    An excellent analysis, and a very well put together explanation of how copyright affects reaction videos on youtube. I'm usually on the side of the little guy and I strongly believe reaction videos, gameplay videos and similar should have much more freedom to operate, but in this case it seems clear that the copyright is valid and they should just bite the bullet and get to an agreement with Jukin to resolve the situation and avoid future problems.

  • Reply Lagiacrus January 16, 2020 at 3:54 pm

    36:02
    But if everyone can simply come along and claim that they are infringing their copyright even though it is perfectly valid fair use, and the way to go about is to not defend yourself in court against such a claim but simply let the complainant have their way with them, as you said in the entire video until this point, isnt not doing what could potentially be construed as Copy right infringement the best way to go?

  • Reply Xrandomdonalds January 16, 2020 at 3:59 pm

    Mxr plays won the battle because of help from thequartering. It is so obvious from your videos that whenever you deal with youtube cases you are only bias when you know there is a 100% chance of winning. At the end of the day, you are making these videos for yourself and don't care about youtube content creators.

  • Reply Floris Fiedeldij Dop January 16, 2020 at 4:02 pm

    When you do stuff with the best intentions and a big money rich company puts you up against a wall, you feel and you react how you feel. That does not mean they mention extortion as a legal term. It is an expression of how it feels.

  • Reply Per Wrede January 16, 2020 at 4:04 pm

    I've always wondered how exactly it can be legal to make money simply watching other people's videos (i.e reaction videos).

    Seconds-long videos owned by copyright trolls or not.

  • Reply Kyle Shepherd January 16, 2020 at 4:14 pm

    I’ve never screamed “GET A LAWYER” so many times in a period of 38 minutes and 19 seconds in my life.

    Feels like a Geico commercial- $500 and one hour could save you 1,000,000.

    These people take advantage of people who don’t have experience or understanding – but it’s not Copyright trolling its their legal requirement. If they fail to enforce their copyright or enforce it selectively, they can lose the copyright. So it’s statutorily required and just business sense.

  • Leave a Reply