this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
12 points (67.6% liked)
Videos
14315 readers
341 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to [email protected] instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both [email protected] and [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The current reupload is still a poorly credited rewording of Riley's article, and it still lifts the article wholesale in wording, structure, facts and research. Even the pacing is the same.
IH didn't come clean about the copyright infringement, choosing to instead dodge any questions regarding the matter. Now if this was just some spat between creators that we didn't need to get into as an audience, that wouldn't be as much of an issue. But the problem with copyright is, either you credit publicly and clearly, or you will be called out for it publicly. It is the same in academia, where a lot of this rigor stems from in the first place. I'm entirely sure the author could claim the current reupload. We won't know if they have had contact before this version was reuploaded, but we can safely assume they didn't have any contact whatsoever to greenlight his first upload.
Addressing transgressions like this is also necessary, if not vital, to the YouTube and creator ecosystem that also has to keep itself in check. If you step out of line, you risk this very thing happening. And then it doesn't matter if it is 2 days or six months or three years, or even older (as Hbomber also points out, there was some deeply racist stuff in IH's uploads that have since been deleted).
============================
Just watch the video dude
============================
And that would be something between the article writer and IH, no?
That's all we can do, yeah.
By making a drama out of it on public stage so that others, like HBomber, can benefit from it as well? I don't see how that's beneficial.
I mean the Wine video was pretty great and informative, and I've watched it before this hit the fediverse. But thanks. (Also I'm not a dude.)
I.... just watch Hbomber's video because you are either not understanding, or refusing to understand. I think it's the latter, which would confirm my initial assumption of you engaging in bad faith.
No I simply don't want to give drama any space that sparked out of a controversy that could have been resolved between both actors. People love fake drama I get that, but I don't.
Is it shit that there was apparently no clear communication between both before the work on that Video in Question started? Yeah, absolutely.
Do I think that the copyright claim was justified? Absolutely.
Is it enough for me that there wasn't any further actions done by the copyright holder against IH e.g. taking down the video again after it was reuploaded with proper sourcing? Yeah.
And I think the audience should do as well since it's not our legal battle. In my country for example, writers and novelists have a Union to subscribe to that will fight those legal battles on behalf of them, they also compensate them accordingly.
The Hbomberguy video isn't about IH, it's a relatively small part in a much larger video...
Oh for sure that James guy got absolutely bodied lol
Hey that's so cool, I hope nobody steals your writing in the US or I don't know, Bahrain, because good luck I guess! A hobby writer such as yourself should be better informed than this, but you won't do it yourself and I'm done having to hold your hand while you thrash around whining about your favorite youtuber getting their due. (A youtuber btw with a pretty on the nose anti SJW/pro 4chan background, maybe reconsider on that account)
Again, deeply misinformed.