3 ms·

This was so misjudged it beggars belief. The video is down now but if you watch the original (ironically preserved via other Youtuber's reaction videos) it reve

This was so misjudged it beggars belief. The video is down now but if you watch the original (ironically preserved via other Youtuber's reaction videos) it reveals two guys who drank long and deep of the corporate Kool-aid, spewing marketing buzzwords and railing against content thieves, oblivious to the irony that a) they based their content off unlicensed content (fair use of videos they got 'reactions' to) b) the reaction format predates them

dwild 11y ago
Are they really using content unlicensed? I feel like that would be an awful risk to take when it's so easy to do a content id (they did it themselves multiple time) and take all their revenue or even simply force it to be take down. They could easily license any video for a couple hundred or a revenue sharing model.
exelius 11y ago
IMO this is the video equivalent of a lot of the early Internet software patents. They took something that was a natural evolution of a larger community and tried to seize the intellectual property around it. I'm not even sure that what they were trying to trademark would be a valid trademark. But beyond that, WTF were they thinking? On YouTube, your viewers are younger kids who are also creating their own videos. If they're really a fan of your content, they're going to copy you - shamelessly. Did they really think their viewers were just going to sign over royalties from their videos to the Fine Bros and not be pissed off about it? Is it really a good idea as an entertainer to go after your most dedicated fans?
- dwild 11y ago
  They never went after their fans. That's the hypothetical scenarios most people were afraid of. They had one angry twit against Ellen, they had some weird take down (which didn't need theses trademarks either). All I've seen them trying is to allow people to legitimately do a copy of their show. I wouldn't never try to copy that format, I wouldn't be afraid to make my own "react to" but I would try to be different, original, with the concept. Having access to their format, their contents, etc... that could be a good way to try, to start, a way that I wouldn't dare taking because of copyright, but would be interesting for simply 20% of literally not much revenue. Stopping React World does nothing else than stopping legitimate copy...
  - exelius 11y ago
    You can do all of this today without their branding though. Or their permission. It's not like being associated with them is going to get you much credibility when it's an open system. Nothing is stopping you from making a total rip off of their show and its format today - and you don't need to get permission or pay royalties. That's how it should be; it's not like anyone is using copyrighted characters.
  - greyfade 11y ago
    The react format is not original. It predates FineBros by some years. Even the name being "X reacts to y" predates FineBros. It could not be more unoriginal. But what Fine was doing was claiming that people were copying them and then trying to lock up the format behind their trademarks. It's like if you invented the wheel and people started also making wheels, and then I came along and started claiming everyone stole it from me several decades later.

dwild 11y ago

Are they really using content unlicensed? I feel like that would be an awful risk to take when it's so easy to do a content id (they did it themselves multiple time) and take all their revenue or even simply force it to be take down. They could easily license any video for a couple hundred or a revenue sharing model.

exelius 11y ago

IMO this is the video equivalent of a lot of the early Internet software patents. They took something that was a natural evolution of a larger community and tried to seize the intellectual property around it. I'm not even sure that what they were trying to trademark would be a valid trademark. But beyond that, WTF were they thinking? On YouTube, your viewers are younger kids who are also creating their own videos. If they're really a fan of your content, they're going to copy you - shamelessly. Did they really think their viewers were just going to sign over royalties from their videos to the Fine Bros and not be pissed off about it? Is it really a good idea as an entertainer to go after your most dedicated fans?

dwild 11y ago
They never went after their fans. That's the hypothetical scenarios most people were afraid of. They had one angry twit against Ellen, they had some weird take down (which didn't need theses trademarks either). All I've seen them trying is to allow people to legitimately do a copy of their show. I wouldn't never try to copy that format, I wouldn't be afraid to make my own "react to" but I would try to be different, original, with the concept. Having access to their format, their contents, etc... that could be a good way to try, to start, a way that I wouldn't dare taking because of copyright, but would be interesting for simply 20% of literally not much revenue. Stopping React World does nothing else than stopping legitimate copy...
- exelius 11y ago
  You can do all of this today without their branding though. Or their permission. It's not like being associated with them is going to get you much credibility when it's an open system. Nothing is stopping you from making a total rip off of their show and its format today - and you don't need to get permission or pay royalties. That's how it should be; it's not like anyone is using copyrighted characters.
- greyfade 11y ago
  The react format is not original. It predates FineBros by some years. Even the name being "X reacts to y" predates FineBros. It could not be more unoriginal. But what Fine was doing was claiming that people were copying them and then trying to lock up the format behind their trademarks. It's like if you invented the wheel and people started also making wheels, and then I came along and started claiming everyone stole it from me several decades later.