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

14 jaan 2020
1 082 246 Vaatamised

Jukin Media demands MxR Plays pay $6000 for three meme videos! Is it EXTORTION???
Get the 11 Myths of Online Copyright for FREE:
Get more info on the subject!
Richard Hoeg's video on the subject:
Leonard French's video on the subject:
©©©©© Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you (15% OFF!):
⚖️⚖️⚖️Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my PRELAW COURSE:
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
🕵️‍♂️My Custom Suits:
👔My Ties:
📎My Tie Clips/Bars:
🔲My Pocket Squares:
💈My Hair Product
📸My Video Camera Setup
Summary of the dispute from the BBC:
MxR and Potastic Panda are known for making videos where they react to memes and other online content. But it turns out four videos they watched have been bought up by a media company, which has slapped them with a bill for infringing its copyright.
And unless they pay, their channel could now be removed due to the nuances of EEworld's copyright system. A channel receives a strike against it if a copyright owner formally notifies EEworld that a copyright infringement has taken place. Receiving three strikes, according to Google, results in a EEworld channel being "subject to termination". MxR Plays is a EEworld channel which often involves 'reaction videos' - where people film themselves reacting to anything from memes to movie trailers. MxR and Potastic Panda, the EEworldrs who host the channel, say they have received four copyright claims in the same bill from Jukin Media, with Google yet to be notified. Their joint channel has 840,000 subscribers - and MxR has a personal following of more than two million.

Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have a suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts:
Laws Broken:
Law 101:
Real Law Review:
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!

★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜
★ Stella’s Insta:
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here:

  • © Are MxR’s videos are fair use? If so, why? 🕹Get the 11 Myths of Online Copyright for FREE:

    LegalEagleLegalEagle10 місяців tagasi
    • I have a question for you epic law man! what if I make a movie review as you mentioned in the video but distort both video and audio to the point where you can see that it's the original movie but it's barely watchable in that state. Imagine stretching the aspect ratio to make all the faces trice as large as their height, then tilting the entire picture 15 degrees clockwise and then skewing all that in a trapezoidal shape, while toning down all voices and audio and also making it go 1.05 times slower of faster. Basically if the original content is so distorted that it cannot be enjoyed as the original content, is it still that content? thanks best wishes Kayzo

      kayzoku1kayzoku18 päeva tagasi
    • @Iaotle1 Copyright is about copying and distribution of another's work. Mxr don't have a license to do that, even those who make no profit can be subject to claims, so they could easily lose a case. I agree the law is broken, the lack of clarity favours established businesses and permits extortion of ordinary people (I know of some who have had to pay fines for downloads NOT redistribution). Mxr need to check who owns clips and have permission to use them. They perhaps should find a way to create without these legal liabilities.

      RobBCactiveRobBCactive14 päeva tagasi
    • @rea L Oooooh, great point.

      Pokemon Trainer LinkPokemon Trainer Link25 päeva tagasi
    • So if they made a twitch channel showing them playing video games live. It that fair use or infringing on video game creators

      rea Lrea L25 päeva tagasi
    • So far in your video, not really, but like, Jukin needs to grow some balls. Like why do they exist at all? They're pointless, greedy moneybags. Nobody needs or wants them. So like, either they stop existing, or that fair use should be expanded. Cause like, MxR aren't really harming anyone. I mean, trailer reactions do react to whole trailers, sometimes rewatching them, and trailers are significantly longer than many of these clips. AND, if you take the number if trailer reactions and their views, plus the channels that only upload the full trailer, that likely aren't, or at least shouldn't be allowed to do, they get far more views than the trailer itself, uploaded by the actual company/companies, and none of them are claimed for copyright.

      Pokemon Trainer LinkPokemon Trainer LinkМісяць tagasi
  • The fact that they fullscreen the clips is god damned amateur hour. "I'll just show these clips full screen with no edits, and put my basically silent ass in a tiny box 5% of the screen. It's OK, I'll just have a mob of teenagers harass them online, that will be fine."

    Eric SwensonEric Swenson3 tundi tagasi
  • I really wish there was somewhere that I could find out which clips belong to certain ....entities, such as Juken. That way we could all avoid it like the plague if only on principal.

    Asmodeus MictianAsmodeus Mictian21 tund tagasi
  • I actually got worried, and then I saw the upload date

    Orion 902Orion 902Päev tagasi
  • Great video Legal! Good balanced advice. I watch MxR Plays more than I would care to admit so I'm a fan but clearly they're went about this is a non-productive way. Jeannie and Henry turned into emo kids when they started to talk about this, thinking that going to their audience would raise an army that would storm the Jukin Media offices. It's actually not clear to me that they had a strategy at all. Then again doctors and Millennials are famous for their business sense. Divulging their mindset on YT also seemed to be counterproductive. As a famous Olive Oil importer once said, "Never tell anyone outside of the family what you're thinking again..." That the ultimate outcome was not catastrophic for MxR is great but they prevailed by the skin of their teeth.

    Wily CoyoteWily CoyotePäev tagasi
  • @LegalEagle 31:25 Why is it appropriate to use theft as an analogue for copyright infringement? Isn't it Copyright 101, that theft deprives the owner of possession, while copyright infringement only deprives the owner of potential revenue.

    TehJumpingJawaTehJumpingJawaPäev tagasi
  • Has the internet forgotten Jukin already? The funny, chubby, smiling guy, the dumb skits they made in their office... This feels like if Ryan George was no longer recognized but in the news for yelling at cats.

    tiecktieckPäev tagasi
  • this shit has happened before with ray williams johnson.

    Will HueyWill HueyPäev tagasi
  • Watching this makes me wonder, how on earth is Daily Dose of Internet not going under yet?

    Anh NguyenAnh NguyenPäev tagasi
  • justice for the rich in the USA.

    Juan RamirezJuan Ramirez2 päeva tagasi
  • MxR's case looks really bleak from the way you presented. Doesn't look like much fair use at all. They need to just pay the damn license fees ahead of times. The guy clearly had time to research and pick out compilations of videos for their reaction video. He could have easily taken a little more time to PAY the license fees of those videos first. They are making money from their videos, so they can't just get their source materials for free.

    Archie ChenArchie Chen2 päeva tagasi
  • it's a tough spot. just from what u showed of their channel it's sure don't look good. if they already ponied up 2k they could have just got a lawyer and might have costed little more but it would be done.

    once upon a dimeonce upon a dime2 päeva tagasi
  • I'd love to see a lawyer say "Dude, stop admitting to shit!" in court. Definitely stealing that clip, turning it into a meme and flooding the internet with it. It's fair use 'cos I says it is.

    KX36KX362 päeva tagasi
  • The question, are all videos posted on EEworld or other video-sharing platforms is considered "fair use" or copyright?

    C KaisonC Kaison2 päeva tagasi
  • lol at the intro at this video. good news and bad news, you might win, you might lose. wanna find out? 🤲pony up $$$!

    KX36KX363 päeva tagasi
  • At the moment that defending yourself from something you find it to be abusive, might cost you everything you own and will own in your life, you are objectively denying the right for that person to defend themselve, and by definition practicing extortion, is it illegal extortion? Nope, but it is extortion nonetheless.

    Pedro ThevenardPedro Thevenard3 päeva tagasi
  • I actually practice law in Tennessee and my personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that the reaction videos are not fair use. The last one I watched, was just two guys watching a clip of Bill Burr's comedy for 5 minutes. In the video, they essentially laughed and acted almost like a patron in a comedy club would act. Reaction videos to me are nothing more than people seeking attention and using the copyrighted work to get the views. In the example that I gave it is no different than sneaking in a video cam to a comedy show and snagging the clip and then later posting it online.

    65Superhawk65Superhawk3 päeva tagasi
  • 17:55 Are they not reimbursed for their attorney fees from the opposing party because they won?

    joop1991joop19913 päeva tagasi
  • This reminds me of a video *I* have up that is a "radio show style interview" of a person in the SCA. The only music on there is a little piece that I purchased the license for, but that ISN'T the spot that this group was trying to copy-right strike me for. They were trying to claim they owned several sections where it's quite clearly just myself and my guest talking. Nothing more, nothing less. No music, nothing else, just our voices. Of course I fought it and it was temporarily dropped, then they came back with another and then a third one and a fourth. Finally I started getting threatening emails stating that they would have my entire youtube account erased unless I paid for "copyright infringement". I told them I would sue the eff out of them for harassment if they didn't stop their BS esp. since the sections they were claiming were, quite clearly, me and my guest talking. They were NOT trying to claim the music or the images. The images were donated by fellow SCA members that I used my scanner to scan in to use for the video. After some more emails that got... rather abusive, they went silent and the constant attempts to claim my video vanished. Same group tried a few of my other videos, the SCA ones and then the two relaxation ones, but soon stopped as soon as I threatened lawsuit for harassment.

    Bridget Kielas-FecykBridget Kielas-Fecyk3 päeva tagasi
  • Where do they get $6000 figure from? No way it's worth that and nobody would pay that to use it.

    RoNīN GaījīNRoNīN GaījīN3 päeva tagasi
  • I think the Quartering is right here, If I remember correctly Angry Joe said the same thing and once you dispute their strike is a game of chicken and those companies often don't bother. ofc, it might be different here since they have a history of going to court already.

    JavsamcaJavsamca3 päeva tagasi
  • They never should've paid a penny and if the video was posted before the rights were purchased it is an original in my opinion not a copyright infringement. And if they just modify the original content in a way that it's not a copy it's fair game.

    RoNīN GaījīNRoNīN GaījīN3 päeva tagasi
  • Another factor is when were the videos posted and when Jukin bought the rights. If the rights were posted after the videos were posted by MxR, would Jukin still have a claim?

    Gerard TrigoGerard Trigo3 päeva tagasi
  • Yes they are bf/gf.

    Jonathan McDonaldJonathan McDonald3 päeva tagasi
  • I don't know which I find most depressing, that you can copyright a 2 second clip of a cat sticking out its tongue or that you can make a living out of your banal reactions to such clips.

    BobitoBobito4 päeva tagasi
  • Could MST3K use the movies underlying their shows (which they show in full) for free under fair use because of humorous comments the robots make?

    Mark HancockMark Hancock5 päeva tagasi
  • This dude always has the best ties.

    SaimerenSaimeren5 päeva tagasi
  • When you are very successful at something, and have gained millions of bucks through your work, i would not get stingy over 6000 bucks. 1 person being selfish like this can ruin for so many peoples oppertunity to good. Like Jeannie. Imagen her getting this kind of money in order to become a doctor. Is that a good trade off or what? Do you really wanna drag somebody through the dirt when you have already been dirty, and you got out of a shitty path. Now other people climb through the same path you just created, and you wanna charge them for it? If you was ripped of millions of bucks from hard work you just did, then i would understand this. But when you sre already at the top of the Mountain, you gain nothing on kicking people down who is climbing also

    jarl Sigurd Storvannjarl Sigurd Storvann5 päeva tagasi
  • They are a predatory agency in all sense.

    Juan Pablo SansJuan Pablo Sans5 päeva tagasi
  • Wow, no one should ever listen to The Quartering about anything. At all. Hopefully MxR doesn’t make things worse for themselves by doing so.

    Vesten PilsbreegVesten Pilsbreeg5 päeva tagasi
  • The subtext being that, this EEworld channel must not be very good, or they would be protected by fair use

    eu staticeu static5 päeva tagasi
  • youtubes shit it use to be cat videos and no worries and people go to youtube to laff but now its like oh no whats going to happen to my fav youtuber

    ayden jamesayden james6 päeva tagasi
  • the big problem is lawyers would rather go down the rabbit whole than answer the first question. is jukin a troll for doing this. 3:00 into the video. smart. mostly financial motive is in that statement. we should have a measure of what is moral or immoral.

    carlitos vodkacarlitos vodka6 päeva tagasi
  • the funny thing is the more they go after these people for using the content the more people worry about getting content struck the fewer people will use content that they can get money from. if they charged mxr reasonable amounts of money they would have probably kept paying but by going about it this way and getting greedy they are shooting themself in the foot.

    multieyedmyrmultieyedmyr6 päeva tagasi
  • my main problem with this is how would anyone know if this predatory company holds any claim to the videos. they are just dumb viral videos.

    multieyedmyrmultieyedmyr6 päeva tagasi
  • To assume is to make an ASS of U and ME. Excellent advice all the way though the video. Test the waters and know what you're getting into before snatching other people work.

    allan lanktreeallan lanktree6 päeva tagasi
  • the 49 dollars is the advance payment, and uses probably an automated system to issue the approval for the clip, the administration costs of staff who are checking for copyright breaches has to be recouped, the administration cost checking and writing letters and so on are all additional costs, i am not saying 1,500 per breach is correct but 49 in advance is fair and it is fair that when giving someone the option to retroactively pay rather than go to court that you get billed more.

    Daniel WarrenDaniel Warren7 päeva tagasi
  • Your videos are always informative and insightful, and I appreciate your #notlegaladvice :) BUT upon mentioning TheQuartering, I would caution even linking or mentioning that individual. I strongly believe he gives very bad advice on virtually ANY topic he touches, where his primary goal is to jump into EEworld drama and monetize it. His viewers are really gullible to consume any content TQ generates, and it's a shame because they should watch LegalEagle's more factual and informative videos instead. Peace.

    Edmund WongEdmund Wong7 päeva tagasi
  • In the volcano clip, shouldn’t that hit the factor of ‘it’s factual’. How can you copyright ‘seeing a volcano’

    A RobA Rob7 päeva tagasi
  • MxR is nothing but commentary and criticism of the clips and memes they feature. Seems like a slam dunk on Factor 1

    A RobA Rob7 päeva tagasi
  • yeaaa go lawyer man! cool dude

    kayzoku1kayzoku18 päeva tagasi
  • Unrelated topic it seems like content creators are under attack lately and youtube has added alot of new regulations and the new notification system is putting alot of people at an disadvantage

    Draco_boiDraco_boi8 päeva tagasi
  • How did they calculate $6000?

    Publius VelocitorPublius Velocitor8 päeva tagasi
  • Seems like there is an argument to be made that a movie review (if favorable) promotes the commercial value of the product. I think that is the case with MxR Plays featuring portions of a video in their shows.

    Publius VelocitorPublius Velocitor8 päeva tagasi
  • So if Jukin is a middleman, are the original owners asking for payment from MxR Plays ? It seems like that should matter.

    Publius VelocitorPublius Velocitor8 päeva tagasi
  • Question. If the issue is lack of commentary, then what constitutes a "comment"? Is a comment defined as a minimum of three sentences (i.e. a paragraph), or by the word for example a minimum of three words? Does the rule of law has a definition and example of what constitutes a "comment"? A comment could be "that's cool" where another comment could be an entire three to five sentence paragraph. If we look at the Webster's Dictionary definition for "comment" we find three answers.

    Gustavo SuarezGustavo Suarez8 päeva tagasi
  • Isn't he infringing on MxRs copyright with this video? Or I guess it's fair use

    Fergus DalFergus Dal8 päeva tagasi
  • That video was from January? It feels like 2 years ago

    épinards & caramelépinards & caramel9 päeva tagasi
  • I have a question, if you can show, Jukin media, only go after large channels, they see have money, and don't make claims against, dozens of smaller channels, with say less than a hundred subscribers, would this in any way be of use in a case like MXR V Jukin? If say Jukin were deliberately buying up videos, with the aim to claim money from these channels, a deliberate tactic as their main aim or goal as a company, would this be illegal?

    tersse btersse b9 päeva tagasi
  • DMCA laws and laws like that them should be completely ousted.

    ToryTory9 päeva tagasi
  • jukin are losers and if they all died no one could care, basically the TLDR. They're the scum thats wrong with the internet.

    ToryTory9 päeva tagasi
  • Here's an idea - don't make reaction videos and actually make content.

    FireOccatorFireOccator9 päeva tagasi
  • Apparently they did this to Tyrone Magnus If this happened today, jukin media would have been accused of being a racist company and targeting minorities. Which would have shut them down instantly. Crazy how the world can change in a few months

    CT-5736 BladezCT-5736 Bladez10 päeva tagasi
  • I have a question: In order to claim copyright over something, does is not have to have a copyright "watermark" in the video (in this instance) for you to be able to claim in court that the person that used the content deliberatly did break the copyright licence? If a company buys the rights to a viral video, dont they have to inform that this content is copyrighted? I see this in every dvd I buy, i see this on ever music CD i buy. My understanding of this is that the law has not kept up with the technology so no one can claim that they are actually inwith their legal right to either claim the copyright or use it freely. Am I wrong? Finally, what about the copyright laws in other countries? If a country does not recoginze the copyright laws of the USA, as long as your company is registered in a country that does not have this law, can a company in the USA legally claim that copyright? Are they not actually breaking the law (extorsion) in that country? ( I know it does not apply to MXR).

    dosdurosdosduros10 päeva tagasi
  • O so they basically steal peoples videos cause the people probly don't know nothing an they get all profits from it

    esmokebabyesmokebaby10 päeva tagasi
  • Update: MxR sues legal eagle for fair use in this video, Jukin sues both for "Inception Content"

    debunkthejunk1debunkthejunk110 päeva tagasi
  • Klien v hoss

    DaveDave10 päeva tagasi
  • Got a bill for $6k. Paid $2k. Still owe $6k. It sounds like a student loan.

    Nathan BradyNathan Brady10 päeva tagasi
  • Hello, This is not an objection, but a question regarding DMCA and overall copyright law. For context, Multiple online platforms, including EEworld, have implemented a content ID system that will automatically scan for copyrighted content. Part of this, at least for EEworld, is completely muting any copyrighted song in a video. The question is as follows: What are the differences (if any) between copyright laws regarding viewable content (videos, clips, pictures, etc.) and auditory content (speeches, music, etc.)?

    Demon of RazgrizDemon of Razgriz10 päeva tagasi
  • if Jukin just takes viral clips and take them as there own and put it in a database cant be sued for ownership by the people that made those viral videos and are it owners for being it creator

    axionaxion11 päeva tagasi
  • I do know if I ever recorded something and it went viral and some company wanted to buy the rights to my video I'd just laugh and ask what right do they have to try to profit from something I did. I am not sure it would qualify as extortion but it sounds a lot like blackmail sadly

    Christopher LitznerChristopher Litzner11 päeva tagasi
  • from my complete ignorance of the law, i feel like this very channel LegalEagle does "fair use" right. you use some clips but your video provides your very own content, that uses those clips for reference. their videos however mostly are just "reactions" at best and there's not "really" any own work done besides copying the original and putting their reaction over it. is me, laughing about and commenting someone elses video "my own intellectual property"?

    einzeller85einzeller8511 päeva tagasi
  • So if they didn't monetize the reaction videos in question would they be off the hook? I've thought about doing a few reaction videos for fun but I'm not interested in getting into copyright issues

    Melissa JetztMelissa Jetzt12 päeva tagasi
  • Tom Scott did a great video on copyright law, which I would advise everyone that liked this video to look up and watch as well, as the information there compliments the information here. Personally, I feel that Juken is in the right here, and to quote Tom, "I'm not saying that's how it should be, I'm saying that's how it is."

    supermarble94supermarble9412 päeva tagasi
  • How do you even know that Jukin actually owns the video?

    SvenSven12 päeva tagasi
  • Imagine listening to The Quartering. I know some people just look for someone on their side, but if The Quartering is on your side, things look ill.

    PellPell12 päeva tagasi
  • Jukin are trolls so I feel for them but AMXR have been doing this for a long time. I suggest they should lawyer up and pay up so that they can move on. Consider this an expensive learning experience. And adjust their behaviour going forward. They are making serious money if is affording them their current lifestyle. So, they should treat their business of making videos SERIOUSLY.

    Michael DyerMichael Dyer12 päeva tagasi
  • © Are MxR’s videos are fair use? If so, why? 🕹Get the 11 Myths of Online Copyright for FREE:

    Tician STician S12 päeva tagasi
  • Jukin calling themselves a media company is exactly what is wrong with this country. They make no media. They buy media from others that are too stupid not to sell. Jukin is a crux of why the internet is a garbage place. Trying to make money on this platform is an "at your own risk" thing.

    TimYoTimYo12 päeva tagasi
  • Using the entire movie in a commentary? Sounds like MST3K.

    pleappleappleappleappleappleap12 päeva tagasi
    • @Shaye Eller Just as these gomers should have.

      pleappleappleappleappleappleap4 päeva tagasi
    • MST3K licensed the movies they used in their show.

      Shaye EllerShaye Eller5 päeva tagasi
  • Should youtube mark the copyrighted videos 'cause there's no way to tell if a video is copyrighted. Also copyrightin viral videos seems very shady

    anssi lehtimäkianssi lehtimäki13 päeva tagasi
  • 1500$ is an amount soo big that no courts in my jurisdiction would allow that high damages unless that money goes to govt

    vatan kumar attrivatan kumar attri13 päeva tagasi
  • Justice is not a part of american bill of rights??? I guess not

    vatan kumar attrivatan kumar attri13 päeva tagasi
  • Million dollars is the cost of justice, wow, American dream huh

    vatan kumar attrivatan kumar attri13 päeva tagasi
  • I would suggest they make a one and final agreement and pay in full or in installments and get it over with, that is what would be very helpful for these people and then just stay away or make other parallel channel to be safe

    vatan kumar attrivatan kumar attri13 päeva tagasi
  • If people watch the clip for watching the clip that is not fare use, but if all they are interested in their reaction and they sell their reaction and not the actual clip on youtube, then it is fair use, what is to be seen is that the new work is substantially different from the old work such that it changes the nature of it, the size and total length of clip is also to be considered

    vatan kumar attrivatan kumar attri13 päeva tagasi
  • Kudos. A very insightful video.

    Mason CorvinusMason Corvinus13 päeva tagasi
  • Worst case scenario just dissolve the company

    Mathy DonMathy Don13 päeva tagasi
  • A cat video really

    Danny TaylorDanny Taylor14 päeva tagasi
  • This made me think of mystery theater 3000 for some reason

    CryCabbitCryCabbit14 päeva tagasi
  • WINNER: EVERY ATTORNEY, billable hours

    ammata thammavongsaammata thammavongsa14 päeva tagasi
  • I didn't know about the channel before this video so I don't want to be rude or anything, but from this video it seems like they just make the "reaction" videos that have long been memed about, where someone will just watch a video and chuckle from time to time or say "cool" and "nice" and that's it. Not sure if that's just the portrayal from this vid, but I wanted to root for them when I read the title. Now... I feel like it might just be two parties trying to make easy money.

    Burz WildBurz Wild14 päeva tagasi
  • So, i have a question. How stringent is copyright law? As a writer, I publish by posting directly online for free (I collect ad revenue and I've been debating on opening a patreon, however). So, basically, if i write something and someone says its too similar to something they wrote, how concerned should i be, on a scale of 1 to 10? And yes, this isnt legal advice. Im asking as a just in case. I know that generally, it wouldnt matter. However, ive heard tell of folks being sued successfully for it. Like, one guy would write about a dwarf falling off a cliff, fighting a dragon. And the other guy would write about a guy struggling out of a shot down plane using similar language. Would this be cause for concern?

    Synth WolfeSynth Wolfe14 päeva tagasi
  • I am often disturbed by watching your videos because of how often it is pointed out how prohibitively expensive it is to get justice under our legal system. If you are poor, no justice for you.

    Jim HillJim Hill15 päeva tagasi
  • So this is what happened. Hilarious how copyright law was supposed to ensure the owner's content. Now it's just a free money button for corrupt people

    Solaireofastora 599Solaireofastora 59915 päeva tagasi
  • You look like a tool but damn dude, you're great at dropping knowledge!

    The OriginatorsThe Originators15 päeva tagasi
  • Moral of this story: This is the reason why the Americas need pirate parties.

    Space cadetSpace cadet15 päeva tagasi
  • "$6000 reason to sue" "Potentially a million dollars in legal fees" Excuse me what the heck? In what world does that make sense? That does not seem like a remotely efficient system for resolving disagreements or violations of law.

    Will BWill B15 päeva tagasi
    • @Juri M I said "more sense" not "it's an ideal system". There has to be a better way, but I'm not sure what it is. The issue I see with the system you mentioned is that all the most capable lawyers who aren't into charity work (or have a strong sense of duty) will concentrate on property, IP law, etc where the rich money is. That would leave the places the current system fails understaffed and overwhelmed. Even worse if the cost of getting an education in any type of law is the same. Is it better than our current system? Quite possibly, but it still looks far from ideal.

      Will BWill B8 päeva tagasi
    • @Will B That doesn't mean that the system itself isn't flawed by itself. It is just stupid to pay lawyers by hours and doesn't give the "weak" (=not so wealthy) people any way to fight back the "strong" (=rich) people. In Europe we actually have laws how much an attorney can earn in fees, depending on the amount reasoned to sue. So a case about 6000 Euro would cost around 850 Euro as fees for the attorney and that's it. US should really think about changing their judical system to be accessible by the majority of people and not just by their rich folks.

      Juri MJuri M8 päeva tagasi
    • And by the end of the video it makes more sense. Highly educated people are expensive, and stuff gets complicated enough to NEED that education. :/ The requirements of resolution outweigh the value of a LOT of problems in measurable ways. Stuff would be so much easier if it could be summed up as checkboxes a computer could evaluate in a fraction of a second... but this isn't a problem that CAN be summarized to that degree.

      Will BWill B15 päeva tagasi
  • a good rule of thumb is to just not take any advice from the quartering he is a moron

    KramKram15 päeva tagasi
  • What if the EEworldr had added the links on their description and had said something like "I am leaving the video link on the description. Feel free to go there, watch the video and make your own opinion". Would that still be copyright infringement as they would be offering the source? Would it be the equivalent of any other research people do?

    Fabiana 'Bia' TFabiana 'Bia' T16 päeva tagasi
  • If I thought like a lawyer I would probably not be

    Tim KellyTim Kelly16 päeva tagasi
  • I've made reviews of anime using clips from anime and either I got demontized or the video couldn't be shown in certain countries one being the U.S. and I was using 30 second clips for the most part but I couldn't get my second video uploaded since it wouldn't be shown in most country's

    T.J. JohnsonT.J. Johnson16 päeva tagasi
  • Entitlement.

    casual gAm3rcasual gAm3r16 päeva tagasi
  • "Stop admitting sh##" That was unexpected. The way he said that was nailed with alot of annoyance and hatred

    Pun KingPun King16 päeva tagasi
  • While I find there videos entertaining it is not souly the clip they are watching that is the source of entertainment. When I watch say a ERB video I then like watching how others react to it. So if they only play snips of a video could they make the argument that it is not the clip but there reaction or lack there of witch is what there viewer came to see?

    Kaneosaurus RexKaneosaurus Rex16 päeva tagasi
  • Honestly I think that they are copyright trolls and they are taking advantage of the fact that most people don't understand the law and can't afford lawyers. If lawyers and judges can't give definitive advice about copyright law than the law is not beneficial to society because nobody can follow it.

    R NR N16 päeva tagasi
  • This is very concerning as a whole but when I hear the ending to the factor 2 defence you say "it becomes the least important of the 4 factors". Why would facts be the least important argument? I would go on to say what the couple are doing is just stating facts at times but more so to review what they are seeing first hand.

    88cameras88cameras17 päeva tagasi
  • They sound like a troll honestly.

    Meya TetanaMeya Tetana17 päeva tagasi
  • WINNER: EVERY ATTORNEY, billable hours

    diane ridleydiane ridley18 päeva tagasi
  • This is why people hate lawyers too. Tools of people with power for the most part.

    matt reevesmatt reeves18 päeva tagasi