The Clips Channel does well because people are more likely to watch a video about one topic they are interested in AND they can comment about the one topic below the video without worrying about it getting lost in comments about the whole WAN show.
Also, you know what they're going to be talking about before you click on the video. With the full WAN show, the title only shows one of their topics, so you have to start the video, find the timestamps guy in the comments, read all of the timestamps for what they talk about and manually skip through with them to watch what you're interested in. Or you can just wait for the clips channel to upload the single topics that you personally care about.
It's the reaction channels whether just sitting there eating or just watching the video and making comments like every minute are the ones that are the problem
That's all reaction content is however. The "X reacts to Y" type of content only works if X has special insight, and in that case it's not that different from "X plays Y game" that happens to simulate their job. All react content, is ultimately lazy, meme-material. If you are doing react content, and only react content without reaching out and asking, then you're not even adding any value to it. And this is why you see a lot of compilation videos of random tiktoks, those exist "to react to", because lots of people on youtube and twitch don't use tiktok. Likewise TH-cam compilations of twitch clips. If you are live-reacting to something on Twitch, that is a different experience from "making a video of reacting to a video"
@@Kisai_Yuki I highly disagree. React content is not about adding expertise. That's a different type of content. React content is where the viewer shares something that they like with someone who is seeing it for the first time. In which all behaviors of the person reacting are important because it expresses their feelings of what they are watching at any given moment. Why else do you think that "uncut" reactions are so popular that people are willing to pay money on Patreon to access them? Viewers don't care if it is (or want it to be) transformative. They want the original content+ the reactor's raw reaction. That's it.
@@R3_dacted0 That's not what is being argued here. Whatever the viewers want to see is irrelevant to the content that is being posted. React content does not provide anything useful, unless it is expertise. It's brainless content, which to be fair, is highly profitable and wants to be seen. But like Linus said, it's not like this is really helping smaller creators who try and say don't react to me and then get bullied.
There are "reaction" channels which offer little to no additional content to the original video. Those are problematic at best. However, there are also reaction channels which absolutely add real value, and are truly transformative works. Musicians, composers, vocal coaches, singers, dancers, choreographers, filmmakers, etc. who not only react but analyze the content based on their professional skills and knowledge. These channels absolutely deserve to be considered in a completely different light to the average "reaction" channel.
A musician listening to a song and explaining the music theory or meaning of the lyrics or whatever, that isn't react content IMO and is definitely transformative enough to be covered again IMO. Same with someone reviewing a movie or even analyzing it and showing short clips here and there. However if they simply watch a video made by someone else, start to finish and don't add anything more than in the moment reactions, yeah in that case they should be required to get permission from the original creator. It shouldn't even be a question. You couldn't do such a thing with a movie or a TV show, so why would it be okay for a shorter form youtube video? It's still an original and copyrighted work is it not? That said, I have watched stuff that would fall under the latter category. I have people who make their own content that I watch, and if they make a video reacting to another video, yeah I will find it interesting. But just because I watched it doesn't mean I think it should be allowed across the board, they should get permission or not make the 'react' video. Simple as that.
@@no_nameyouknow I watch people who react to songs and give their opinion on them, and I actually enjoy that content, I like to see people discover new music, and see what they think about it. They analyze it but not to the level that vocal coaches, etc do. But I still think it is valuable. But however, one thing that ALWAYS happens is one of two things: The videos get stopped before getting posted, so they know it is gonna get blocked, or they get DMCA'ed and taken down, or what happens most often, is that the music flags the money going to the copyright owner, as you will see it being credited to the artist in a standardized format below the video.
I've been watching so many WAN clips that I've decided I'll just start watching the whole thing. The nice thing about the clips is that they chunk up the show to sprinkle into a variety of videos being watched throughout a session. I think it's good that both are offered
Helps with millennial attention spans as well. I've watch LMG videos for many, many years including WAN show, but as I grow older, it's harder for me as an adult to sit down for that long to watch it even though I want to, there's just not enough hours in the day. These clips make me feel like I get more done. Every new video I click on has a renewed attention span lease per se.
@Love Gaming stop replying with spam and if you think your computer is actually in trouble, get some anti-virus and/or go post your issue on the Forum.
21:50 it's because watching clips is easier than the whole LAN show. I often run a clip to watch during a meal or procrastinate for a few minutes and having 10-30 minutes epised give me a much better idea how much time I'll spend watching it, whereas on a 3.5 hours video I might sink for longer than I wanted to. Honestly I'm not sure if I ever watched any WAN show entirely as a one video, but I'm watching almost every clip you upload here from it
I will watch the entire show if they have a mega topic or something, but I'll watch the clips that interest me. I used to leave the show on the second monitor and watch it Monday morning, but the clips work just as well and I get to skip the boring stuff.
I like multi hour content I can listen to while working. But I can see how someone who is watching in their spare time, wouldn't want to sink in so many hours.
Reaction channels pollute search results for the thing they're reacting to, annoyingly. It's a first world problem but definitely something TH-cam ought to address
@@MasterKey2004 youtube should offer video pass through, where it identifies the original and shows up the views on both videos and gives like 70% to the original. It's their own platform they should be able to do this fairly easily
One of my favourite TH-camrs is Rick Beato who does incredibly detailed analysis of popular music. His videos are absolutely transformative, he only plays snippets of the original songs (played by himself) and he goes into the musical theory behind them. By any sane definition this is fair use yet Rick doesn't even bother to try and get ad revenue for any of his videos because they will be flagged. Worse still some of his best videos have been blocked by the original music owners despite the fact that Ricks videos are love letters to the songs and would make anyone want to go and listen to the original track.
if he does what you're describing it's not react content. it's another thing. react content is people staring at a video while the video is playing and maybe throwing in one or 2 words sometimes.
@@MrA6060 check teeaboo, he will do what you describe and then speak for 1 hour or os about it, all out of 1 20m episode, 100% valid reaction content, and mainly what it should be.
I remember awhile back it was discussed that certain TH-camrs were being targeted by music labels. I think Rick Beato is one of them. The crazy thing is that Rick Beato has connections in the music industry.
There are several in the music reaction scene actually analyzing and diving pretty deep into the stuff they react to (TankTheTech, Elizabeth/TheCharismaticVoice and Michael Palmisano immediately come to my mind), and several artists have openly praised them for what they do and collaborated with them in interviews, livestreams and actually in providing content for them to react to. So the reaction scene in itself is a spectrum too.
yeah but even lazy react content is still widely beneficial to the music scene. whereas pretty much every other art form, react content is mostly theft especially for people on the platform whose entire identity revolves around being a reactor
I've never been able to watch it live, and had no interest in watching the full vod afterwards, but the clips mean that I can watch the sections separately, though it does mean I'm missing out on some of the content
I didn't watch the WAN Show until you started doing clips. The reason I love the clips, and watch them all (which basically makes up an entire episode of the WAN show at that point) is I que up a bunch of videos to listen to at work, and I like interspersing them with other content. For example: LMG Clip, gaming news, LMG Clip, car video, LMG Clip, health video etc. And, when you release clips in a 2-3 day period, it makes it easier to watch them all vs dumping them all in one day. Clips are great, and you do them really well.
I’m glad you specified in the beginning “the way _some_ creators approach react content” There are so so so many LAZY channels who pump out videos 3, 4, even 6 times a day - zero editing, very little commentary, basically just watching someone else’s content without providing any reaction whatsoever! They value quantity over quality and it drives me INSANE. There’s a very _niche_ group of people who do it this way, too.
The clips channel really is useful. I usually looked through the timestamps to see if there were any topics that interested me but now TH-cam just recommends the topics I want and automatically tracks my nonlinear progress through the podcast.
I remember back in the day when people complained about Jinx and how awful he was and now some of the biggest twitch streamers do content that is very similar, even worse when they walk away or are eating through out the video. Yet they are defended so much now.
I was thinking the same thing. I almost feel bad for Jinx. It is weird how much hate he got when now Pokemane, Hasan, Critical, XQC and ASmongold all do the same thing everyone claimed to hate Jinx for and no one cares
@@doomdimensiondweller5627 There is a difference between what some of those streamers do, versus staring at a video and offering little to no opinion on what is happening. Asmon gets shit all the time because he'll turn a 20 minute video into an hour long reaction. I don't think that's comparable at all.
@@Chopstorm. That honestly doesn't track cause Asmongold said it himself that he wants all of his reactions to eclipse priority with the algorithm while using other creators to do so. Asmongold has always had an ulterior motive for why and how he does his reactions. He's not anymore different than Critical or Hasan. They're both in it for the easy money and they're running to the bank while playing in people's faces.
I am so glad you mentioned the popularity of the clips channel in this video. As a severely affected ADHD individual, the thought of sitting through a 3 hour talk show is absolutely daunting. Three hours of my day is a long ass time, and the thought that I’ll hyper focus on it and blow off everything else I have to do riddles me with irrational anxiety 😂. LMG Clips is super digestible, and I can watch one or two on my lunch break or after I get home. It made me a little sad in the past, though, knowing I was missing some of the inbetween antics and small segments that aren’t important enough to make it into the clips. However - Since discovering that the full WAN Show is on Apple Podcasts, I’ve eaten that shit up. I drive constantly(couple hundred miles a day) for my day job, and I LOVE listening to podcasts. Videos for me require my undivided attention, I can’t mentally rationalize leaving a video running in the background for some reason, but I can listen to a podcast while I’m driving around inbetween visits and deliveries.
@@ScipiotheAfricanus that’s honestly normal. ADHD can be better framed as a lack of ability to control your attention. Most of the time this looks like a lack of attention at all, but sometimes you play the same video game for 12 hours straight, or watch the entire 7 hour video in once sitting lol (this can also show up as you _finally_ getting to work, and someone comes to ask you a simple question and you get as annoyed as they just told you a stranger’s cat just came in your house and pissed in your shoes. There’s a certain about of effort going into beating that resistance to getting work done, so when you finally get past that and someone comes and interrupts you…you just don’t have the energy to really engage normally so your anger/frustration drives the response…the same way it probably is what is driving the work in the first place, because it won’t get done unless you berate yourself into a frenzy and finally work) Personally, if I am actually watching, I like the clips show, if I am at work then the long-form episodes are great because I _need_ background noise when I’m doing boring tasks or I will get in my head and mess something up because I’m just…not always capable of paying attention to what I am doing. I try really hard, but you get that moment at the last second where I lose focus and drop something or something slips out of my hand or whatever (ah, reliving childhood trauma. Yes dad, it is hard to hold a flashlight sometimes. Idk why. Yeah I guess there is just something wrong with me. I know you never had these issues as a kid. I wish I was different)
When it comes to reaction channels, i always wanted a website which displays a reaction video, and the original video, and sync them with timestamps in the description. This would allow ads and give views to the original, but a system like that would probably not work.
It also helps when you want to comment on a specific topic without the fear of the comment getting lost on the sea of comments about the other topics of the show. But it probably will get lost in the sea of comments anyway, but there is a chance it wont :D
Apart from the "fair use" issues, I feel that the only react content that could be considered actually good is a creator "reacting" or more accurately "commenting/analyzing" aspects of content related to their personal skills or fields. For example, a lawyer reacting to and commenting on legal things in both media and the news (ala LegalEagle) is decent react content, while a couple of random dudes just emotionally reacting to anime episodes without even constructively commenting on it is trash react content and a plague on the youtube landscape.
In the metal music scene some react channels have really been embraced, getting early access to music videos to be able to do simultaneous releases. I recognize that this is a niche case, since music videos are released to promote the artist. They're not really made to make money, so all views are equally valuable. But this topic is complicated. React videos really balance on the edge of legality
I just came from a reaction video to Ren's 'Hi Ren'. He's an unsigned artist and therefore youtube is likely a more significant part of his income than for a signed artist (at least that's what I expect despite being truly clueless on it). But Ren has been active in the comments of most of the reaction videos i've seen, and has, I believe, even made a list of each of the reactors that have covered him on his own website to promote them. The release of that particular song by Ren is the first time I've really wanted to watch react videos (it had significant impact on me personally and I wanted to see how others took it too), but the whole phenomenon is still kind of bizarre to me. It is certainly of dubious legality, and now I don't really know if it would be to the benefit of specifically musicians to get rid of them altogether. A few weeks ago, I would have said they rarely offer value to anyone, now I just don't know if that's true.
@@rikiba851 the legality in many cases is dubious at best. But the actual law doesn't really matter, what matters is what the copyright holders want. A number of music reacters do offer added value to the viewing though. Equipment used, song technique, composing patterns. Then there's the shared emotional experience too. Emotions do amplify similar emotions.
@@Irthex Yeah, the added value is definitely there for some music reactors i've seen. The one i watched earlier was Michael Palmisano, and I came away from it with a small lesson about diminished thirds, and a book recommendation. With others, the shared emotional experience is exactly what I got, and wanted.
Reaction videos are OK so long as they are heavily focused on reaction or critique and just uses short clips of the OG content. The problem is most reaction videos show the whole OG vids so the original creator looses out.
There's also the big issue with being a smaller creator - it's not even a 100% revenue vs ignoring it, for most people at the bottom it's full on copyright STRIKE or ignore it, no option to claim. (would love to have granular claiming options)
You're mistaken about copyright claims being all-or-nothing; you can be claimed and then have the claimant share the revenue with you. I make a lot of synopsis content - usually I'll go in and distill 55-60 minutes of dense, expository content into a more digestible, (ideally) better-paced sort-of summary vid. They're not reaction videos; they're fully scripted and edited and voiceovered and all that. It's without a doubt transformative, but I always try to be considerate of not making the original content _redundant._ That said, I've encountered other channels who _literally_ just play the whole series and then say "the next video is called [whatever]" before playing it. It completely eliminates any need for anyone to watch the original video, and that's not okay - it's not fair use. It's obviously not transformative enough if upon watching it there's _no reason_ to go back and watch the original. I will say, TH-cam _does_ make it very easy to take down videos reacting to your content, to the point that I was taken aback. Whenever I've had videos hit the trending tab, I get a ton of messages from other creators asking for permission to react to my content. This is because if they don't, there's a _very real chance_ that a creator will automatically take down your reaction video for matching too closely to your own. I of course never utilize that; I believe in people's right to react.
The main reason why I watch react videos is because of my music taste. None of my friends enjoy the shit I listen to so when I watch react videos, it's like I'm watching a friend listen to a song I showed them. When reacters enjoy something I enjoy, it makes me happy
There was a channel I watched several years ago that made reaction content to a kids show. At the time, there was a LOT of controversy about reactions overall. This person created a "Reactor Permission List" online and actively messaged EVERY SINGLE content creator he knew. Whether it was a channel that he wanted to react to in the future or not. Many times he was asking channels that other people were reacting to already without permission. He took ALL the responses he was able to acquire and organized them on the online doc what level of permission a content creator was okay with giving people who react to their content. He even included a section for each person and specified any and all requirements each content creator required. And every entry included an attachment that showed proof of the discussion between himself and the content creator(s), including their overall answer and rules/guidelines. MANY other reactors actively used this list as an overall reference and some even tried to reach out to even more content creators to help expand the hundreds of channels that were already on there. Sadly, he doesn't make reactions anymore. But there's no doubt that the doc he made was INVALUABLE for the several years that it was being supported for!
I love that! One of the reasons I love the retro/synthwave community is because so many of the artists are DMCA safe and one of the channels I follow (Nightride FM, maybe? can't remember exactly, but I've got it bookmarked somewhere... lol) even has a running list on their site of artists who have explicitly spoken on their stances with citations for each.
You are referring to the document titled "Mlp Reaction Permission List" from 2016. "IDEA MADE BY BRONYMONSTER44 & PIEDISLIKERSWAG. SPECIAL THANKS TO PEGAJEN FOR HELPING!"
I was glad when ya'll finally made LMG Clips, because I don't have to sit through a 3 hour live stream to get the one nugget I found interesting or relevant. a 3-30 minute video on a single topic is much easier to digest. Not that I have any issues with long form content or the WAN show itself, but Clips just makes it easier to get to that one thing.
I think a really good reaction channel being "the charismatic voice " an amazing channel where she talks not only about her passion for vocals, but instruments and tone. Yes she reacts in all sorts of ways, but its also educational and not over the top
I had this idea that probably is very stupid, but you guys tell me what you think about it: what if the original videos used by the react videos were embedded in the react video they show up in, kinda like a video playing within a video. This way, the original copyright owner would be getting views and potentially revenue from the react videos that use it. The react channels could choose which clips of the original video they wanted in their video, and when the original should be paused, for example, to explain a comment they make or something. These adjustments would be done in an editing software directly on TH-cam. I do, however, foresee some problems with this method: the sync of ads - both videos would have to play ads simultaneously, and maybe the distribution of the ad revenue could be a little tricky. Besides, there's also a problem if the react channel links a copy of the original video instead, which there are tons, depending on the popularity of the video. Idk, it was just a silly idea I had while watching this, I don't know if something similar already exists or if there's some impossibility that prevents it from existing that I'm not seeing.
@@SparrowwithaMachinegun Yeah, I could definitely see some channels not wanting to do it, mostly because it requires some effort from them and also because they would need to divide revenues with the original copyright owner (which they, currently, don't), but if it was done to avoid legal confrontation between 2 parties, then I could see it being beneficial. But then again, if the original video creators are small parties, then there's just no incentive for the reaction channels to comply (since small creators don't have the means to engage in legal actions against reaction channels), unless TH-cam took serious actions to prevent this blatant use of copyrighted material under a supposed "fair use" to take place, which I'm not seeing it happen any time soon.
The issue with this idea is that it blurs the line between a fair reaction video and a video response. If the line is too tight on seeing the length of the video, then react channels will cut small parts and make off with the revenue. If the line is too loose, then channels which are video responses to other channels content would be flagged as reactionary content when they clearly aren't.
Another oversight of this idea is content that is not available on TH-cam, such as TV shows or movies, that sometimes people react to and that could not be linked to, since it's not on TH-cam to begin with.
@@alderstifen7738 Yup, that surely is an issue too, but it's still preferable that the original creator gets some revenue this way, rather than nothing at all (or much less than they could be getting, because there are some reaction videos that instigate people to go watch the full video).
Oh... Linus has a good point. Partial claims would be amazing! Or partial sharing where the uploader can proactively choose to share a percentage of the video revenue with the channel who's video they're reacting to.
Video game commentary channels have been asking that since it's inception, basically around the time COD4 came out and Capture cards and microphones were getting cheap enough. But TH-cam seems to see that as too much effort and go for an All or Nothing approach. That's basically what Machinima was created for, to fight legal battles for a new precedent.
@@Alias_Anybody sometimes is weeks of work for a reactor to play it in one sitting while sometimes not even watching it. Also a lot of these big reaction channels as soon as anything gets claimed they will rather take the video down or private it than let the claim (no copyright strike, just claim) go thru .
@The Padded Cell This is late, but I have to reply. The vast majority of reactors would be overjoyed to get 50% of the ad revenue. At least 90% of their videos are copyright claimed and they get nothing. That's why they all have Patreon and push it, because if they had to depend on ad revenue, they'd starve.
@@mikkj1this is just plain wrong because Everytime reactors get a copyright takedown they make a big deal about it on socials Wich they wouldn't if it happened often
honestly I hope TH-cam finds a way to have a reaction video system, say like you're watching a reaction video, TH-cam would load the video the Reaction TH-camr is watching while they are reacting to it (and you can set the quality of the two videos separately), this also could come with the benefit of splitting the money made from the video while adding views to both videos. there should also be two separate like and dislike buttons, one for the reaction video, and one for the video reacted to. this is just an idea I thought of, I'm not too sure how TH-cam would implement this feature for videos but it would definitely improve reaction content and make it genuinely valuable to the creator of the video, I just hope TH-cam is prepared to make a system that works for reaction videos to reaction videos, which would be cool.
There's also "watch along" reacts, where they only embed about the first minute of the original so you can sync up the original video with their react, and everyone watching along plays the original video as well.
22:25 I don't know myself if its a good thing to be in this camp of viewers or not but I find LMG clips to be more digestible than watching full WAN VODs or even live WAN. Mostly it's about keeping my interest, having a procured 5-25 minute video dedicated to a certain topic is a lot easier for me to watch and stay engaged with. I feel guilty saying this but the few times I watched WAN I had it in the background for a significant amount of time. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, I enjoy having background content while I go do other things (in that case I was working on a model kit and needed something to fill the silence and snipping), but I also found myself coming back to the highlights and really understanding what you guys were saying.
I think the point Luke is trying to get at is viewers of channels like Philion for example, are not interested in sitting down and watching a documentary on sugar daddies and sugar mommies. They are interested in laughing about how hilariously bad it is with the creator and the rest of the community.
Can't wait to see Asmonbald react to this and try to justify his bullshit take on clearly stealing content. He'll probably go with something around how innovative and transformative his reaction is truly is, we couldn't be smart enough to grasp it.
After learning that a Reaction video can completely destroy the original & make TH-cam promote itself over the original. No. It should be banned. It can easily take 90% of the views from a video & TH-cam in turn punishes the original creator. Some even get flagged for copyright on their own content because someone else reacted to it.
Main reason I watch WAN show on LMG Clips is cuz I can look at a title and say "Hey, this looks interesting to me". I might watch the equivalent of an entire episode of WAN Show in 1 sitting, but I get to pick which topics I watch and which ones don't seem interesting to me.
Reaction videos are good when the reactor is a sort of expert on the field they're reacting to, basically adding some value or insight to the original piece. Edit: Linus is absolutely right, the Corridor Digital's series with experts breaking down movie scenes is a good way to 'reaction'. It adds value and insight.
sometimes its not about if the content is "based on other people effort" , the problem with react contents is that its still taking from the overall views of youtube that could have gone to original content .. i suggest watching dark viper au series on this he explains it in great details
@@Killmaster7 Yep, but in that case, what is the chance of viewer conversion? What would be the upside for the original poster? If you were unlikely to see the video before, the chance that you now decide to go and watch other videos from the same original poster is minuscule. I know that I have myself seen many many reaction videos in the past and I rarely watch more videos of the same original creator. Linus mentions this around 9:15. This isn't a problem when the reaction video is transformative and actually adds something of value to the original video. And by this I don't mean a guy sitting there reacting to it live and laughing every so often, pausing the video and telling a joke or giving some shitty and unimportant opinion. But I mostly mean creators that watch the video beforehand, provide constructive criticism or additional important information to the original work.
@@twanlange2827 "Jetlag the game" saw massive growth from Ludwig reacting to it on stream. They are part of nebula/curiosity stream and the platform saw the highest number of signups in a day ever the first day he watched it on stream. There are a ton of people I watch on youtube because of streamers/reaction videos. Just because the pipeline does not work on you does not make it not work. Summoning salt is another good example he wants streamers to watch his videos since it always leads to new people learning about him liking his content and watching his back log of videos. Obviously people should respect the creators wishes, but I think in general react content does legit help the original video creator. I do not think there would be so many sizeable creators actively promoting streamers watching their content if they did not see it working on the backend.
@@Aritcheyy Just because the 'pipeline' works for you doesn't mean it works either. Either way the argument isn't that if a reacter hadn't watched a video that all of the views they got on their reaction would go to the original video. The argument is if reactors didn't exist the views and the money they get would go to people who make their own original content. You could argue that in that case the total amount of users/hours watched would go down but there's really no way to know for sure.. Anyways watch DarkerViperAUs videos if you really care
@@_Riux Im alright not a fan of him after his attitude about the GTA no hit run got finished by someone else first. Just his arguments around that are enough for me to care 0 about his opinion on anything else.
@@Aritcheyy so just because he was mean one time his argumentens arnt valid? Or are you just putting ur fingers in your ears and going lalala, and are using this as a cheap way to not watch a different perspective. That might change how u see react content
I think if you are reacting live on twitch with no editing then it shouldn't fall under fair use. It is not possible to transform the content while eating your delivered fast food or while you are gone to the washroom. The rare exceptions do exist if you are pausing and analyzing the video though.
A few of the Twitch channels I watch said they feel uncomfortable if they don't pause and at least try to make commentary on it. Also, plugging the original video is a big help. I recently saw a random channel 10x in subs because their video was watched and the video linked in the description and shouted out.
@@Matkatamiba Pausing a video occasionally is very weak justification. Sure it makes them feel better, but it's not going to make all the stolen money and views go to the original creator. Just because you stole a thousand dollars, an insignificant feel-good donation to charity won't make it any less of a crime. And subscribers don't matter. I'm subscribed to a hundred channels that I don't get a single recommendation from, because I don't watch their videos actively.
@@Creepus_Explodus you can point out how pausing in lieu of fair use is weak justification but you cant also deny how traffic and discoverability works on the web. You can make the anecdote of not coming back to channels you sub to, but your experience wouldnt reflect the rest or all of users especially for example from mainly twitch to yt. I pesonally wouldnt have cared for a lot of topics / channels have i not been exposed to them through twitch or other third parties, im sure there are others who reflect my sentiments as with yours but you cant just deny third party exposure exists or subs dont matter - if youre content is good, people will keep coming back, even the chance for that happening is worth something and even smaller creators struggle to get. I feel the system could be cleaned up and just on a by youtube platform basis you can make embedding / react parties have more of a designated system than just a dm / claim here type thing (this is obviously an oversimplified approach to a problem id say is more complex than youre making, but while i dont hold the answers i mean to not say there arent problems on both sides and there needs to be clearer standards / a change in the system). On a by etiquette basis (for now, should be the norm tbh), i think creators need to make it clear who made the video and link to it.
@@itsyeaboi5333 If it really worked that way, then react channels wouldn't grow. They would die out as their audience goes on to watch the original creators. This is clearly not the case, as the top "reactors" on Twitch are constantly growing, showing that the viewers would rather watch along with somebody eating in the corner, than to seek out the original content. If you actually cared about the video being watched, wouldn't you want to watch it undisturbed on your own? Yes, you pick up topics that you like, that's how humans work. You can't like something without first being exposed to it, and these "reactors" act as content curators. A tiny fraction of people will actually seek out the source and explore beyond what is shown on stream. But the vast majority will sit in chat, and tell the streamer to watch the new video uploaded by a channel, rather than watching it on their own. But again, you can't justify theft with an insignificant donation. The "reactor" gets the views, they get the paid subscriptions and donations, and they gain the long-term audience. The original creator gets a tiny fraction of the viewers who either had the decency of giving something back, or were genuinely interested enough to seek out their content instead of being in their favourite zero-effort streamer's chat. You get pissed when a large corporation steals from their workers and their customers. Is the parasocial relationship with the hopes of your favourite streamer noticing you in chat enough justification for the same theft? These streamers steal from the original creator and exploit their audience for donations - all while doing no work whatsoever.
Linus should go commentary tracks to some of his videos, like the thinking about retiring one. Not only would it be fun to hear him squirm watching some of these, but also hear him break down these with his thought process then and perspective now
One of the things I’ve noticed is that a lot of people mistake that “is this commercial” standard to mean “if I don’t make money on this, then it’s Fair Use”. I’ve seen this a lot particularly in communities like Club Penguin, in which people seem convinced that the reason Rewritten was illegal was because they decided to start making money off of it. What people don’t realize is that you can make zero money off your infringing work, and it’s still illegal.
Clips are also much easier to comment on, since each one is (generally) its own self-contained topic, and a viewer doesn't have to write some sprawling multi-paragraph comment to touch on every point they want to make.
A good example of higher quality reaction work is Corridor crew VFX artist reacts. I at least enjoy it and have learned so much from them breaking down VFX shots and stuff. Also it is a rather small portion of the work they are reacting to. I also think react content that Linus is more referring to is so popular is because people find things they love or are pasionate about and like watching people react to it because it allows them to kind of relive their initial interaction with it. Kind of like living vicariously through these react channels to see them react to your favorite video or TV series.
Exactly! I love watching professional musicians/producers react to a song and explain what’s going on so I can appreciate it more. I love watching chefs react to cooking videos and expand on the things we see so I can understand why that person made these choices or why a certain technique was used.
If they take the whole original work then it is still unethical. You don't have a reason to check the original content creator because you allready saw his entire video. You should check darkviperau 's videos about react content. They are very explicit in how react content is bad, and he tackels it by every way of looking at it.
6:37 I would semi disagree here. It just depends on how often someone interjects. The reason I say this is I mod for a channel that will react to the whole video (leaving in sponsor spots even if the chat gets upset every time) and they react so much that it can take them like an hour to get through a 5 minute video. To the point that some in the chat complain he isn’t just playing the video. Which he responses you are here to watch my reaction to a chosen content. If you want to go watch the video, go watch the video. So I think there is a case for it still being fair use even if it uses 99-100% of the original work. It just depends what’s added. Pacing is a big part of a good video and a streamer doing a lot of proper reactions to it can ruin it to the point people will later go watch the original work. If you are just laughing here and there or leave the video playing while you go to the bathroom…yeah that’s not fair use. Also I love the idea of say the original creator being able to set how much they deserve from someone else’s use of their content. There could even be an option for negotiations. Since losing some revenue from a video is better than losing all of it.
I think there should definitely be some sort of official system where the video maker and reactor can directly share revenue through an automated system. In some response video formats almost the entire video is watchable in the existing video for the sake of continuity, however the segments for discussion are often longer than the actual original video. Because of this, there is plenty of constructive content that warrant majority revenue, but there is not much reason to watch the original video, even with it being provided in the description. So I think a revenue sharing system would be the best compromise that would encourage actually adding proper substance to the original work, without removing revenue.
A friend of mine on tictoc, did a reaction video with a popular TT'er, got over a million views, that TT'er complained to TT, TT took down her video.... I can only assume that TT'er was jealous of her million views......
One major issue I've seen with react content is from big Twitch streamers. And it's not even necessarily their fault, people will clip an entire segment of their VODs where they reacted to stuff and then upload the whole unedited segment to a separate channel that isn't even associated with said streamer.
I've never watched the full wan show videos, but TH-cam always offers the clips to me on a silver platter and I watch every single one of them. It's not that I'm averse to long-form content, I just never even see the full version in my feed.
Clips are also way more algorithm friendly than long form, as people are way more likely to click on a shorter video with a specific topic that they're interested in than a three hour podcast. A bunch of clips is also just more chances or instances for the algorithm to pick it up rather than having all your eggs in one three hour content basket.
The thing with an entire WAN show is that I'd be interested in 30% of the topics in a given episode, but with clips I can choose which topic to view without scrolling through timestamps
Part of the reason the clip uploads of WAN show are so successful might not just be about digestibility, but marketability. It's very hard to sell a viewer on a piece of content which will cover xyz123, but making short and enticing headings for each component gives you a much larger 'attack surface'.
"Hot" take but I think XQC is one of the worst offenders of this. There are literally thousands of creators that do this, but he has by far the biggest reach out of all of them and he never actually adds anything to the content (and I say all of this as a fan). At least he always lets the in-video ads play all the way through though. If he only did this on stream I would be more okay with it, but having a channel that is dedicated to essentially re-uploading other creator's whole videos with the occasional "NO WAY DUDE" is just shitty behavior from someone that really isn't in dire need of that ad revenue
TH-cam would be able to save a lot of storage space if content creators could take a portion of their existing videos and make it appear as a separate clip video. That way they wouldn't have to store duplicate video.
TBH, TH-cam should probably have an easy solution for the copyright claim. Allow rights holder to mark the part that contains the copyrighted material.
There needs to be a way of linking such that watching the reaction also counts as watching the original content. Perhaps the original video only plays in a separate but imbedded window. The video can be from any source such as TH-cam, Twitch or Netflix which the viewer needs to log into to see. The react video could contain a syncing function that controls pausing and timestamp jumping of the original content, but would otherwise just be the reaction itself.
This is the ideal solution. I remember there being a website a few years ago that did this for watch-a-longs on Netflix. The viewer of the stream had to login to their Netflix account and it would do picture-in-picture video that was synced with the host.
@@wolfbad512 I can think of a couple of things to do about that. Maybe they could have a system that autosubs you after you have viewed a certain amount of their content. Alternatively, have the sub button list the original creator first. You could also reverse my imbedded video idea so that you can only view reactions from the original video page.
@@pcnoad I still don't like the idea of reactors profiting a lot from other ppl works in every other situation where ppl put the entire video in their own video they copyrighted but here you are trying to find a way to let them keep making lazy content that will always hurt the one reacted to
@@wolfbad512 If you paid attention to my original post I specifically proposed not having the original content within the reaction video. The reaction video would only be the reaction itself. The video being reacted to would have to be viewed from it's source. My last proposal required you to watch the original video from the source page with reactions as side content. I understand that you may not find value in reaction content, but a lot of people do. It's interesting to see various perspectives. I've watched a lot of reaction videos to movies I own. It's like reliving the movie for the first time all over again. I agree that reaction videos should never be a market substitute. I just think why not find a technological solution rather than ban something people enjoy. If we want to talk about the effort put in and how much it's worth, all I can say is that I can't control how much others choose to spend on that kind of content. I have yet to pay anyone for a reaction, but evidently some people do. Ultimately that's up to the market to decide that. Why not automatically have a portion of the money made by the reactor go to original content creator?
from my POV, reaction vids stretch fair use, because some of them, have editors, comment censorship, MERCH, brodcasting schedules and line ups , paetrons for funding, what got me, is one creator saying she can't cry for this reaction, because she has another reaction due later, which started to look like a sweat shop or emotion factory they go through. it's an entire satellite industy around content which isn't theirs, i would still watch them, but it's seems to be a show of their own.
Would recommend watch Jay Exci's video on Hasanabi's react content. The megastreamers really shouldn't be able to react to people's content for free. Streamers on 1mill+ a year should have staff that contact the youtubers, agree on a price, and then show it. These streamers make 10s of thousands of dollars in a 10 hour stream & 1 hour of that is youtube reaction content. that money should go to the people they're reacting to. with the original creator's consent.
21:40 Just wanna say, so glad this clips channel exists, even if it does stretch the definition of "clips" somewhat. Being able to watch effectively a full WAN show but chunked up into digestible portions is fantastic! I don't have the time (ok, the willpower) to sit down and watch a 3 hour talkshow (or however long the actual WAN show is), but 5-25 min video blocks? Fantastic! Especially the shorter ones too, as sometimes I just have a 10-ish min gap to fill in my day but most videos in my feed are 20+ mins long
I am totally guilty of watching a full reaction video but then not the original content... It's a problem. When you consider that I have watched entire videos from creators, but via a reaction video on another channel. I actually do this with Asmondgold all the time, I am a huge fan of his, but when considered this way, it really is a problem.
asmon is pretty good at "transformative" though, he can react to a 15 min video and then talk about it for the next hour - although he watches the entirety, that's true
@@aonodensetsu Oh I 100% agree. I love Asmond. I think he is probably one person you could argue does it "right"... BUT, I am definitely guilty of watching a full video on his channel not giving the view or sub.
I must admit that I quite like watching some music reaction videos or movie reaction videos. Quite a lot of my friends do not enjoy some of the same music or films I like. I like seeing someone else's take on music and films I like and here their opinion. Basically like reading a review on such media, but you get to see the effect on the person reacting to it also. Also I get to relive films I liked from many years ago (sometimes from my childhood) without having to take time out to watch the full film. I also get to see or hear some stuff I never thought I would like and go on to discover more from that band etc. leading me to seek out and purchase albums. I don't understand reacting to another TH-cam creators content as I may as well just go watch that creator.
"Pretty much it" does this pretty well I think. They have audio commentary that you can play along side your own copy of a movie. There youtube videos also included clips of there commentary alongside the clips footage of the movie (definitely fair use, edited down, not a full replacement to the movie etc..)
copying is not theft, stealign takes without adding to it, when a react channel plays the whole video, he's adding to it, not copying. he is bringing the video to people that wouldnt see it otherwise. fair use and copyright is illogical, what's wrong is fraud, which is way different than copying.
I have to say recently I have been watching more and more LMG content. It’s really becoming a good media outlet. Hopefully they can do some other topics as well in the future.
Asmongold does react quite well as he'll watch a 15min video, pause it often and discuss/debate sections of it with chat and it'll end up being an hour long video. He reacted to the LTT review of his companies pre-built.
Yeah but with Asmon's audience nobody is gonna slam him because of the size of his audience. Some videos he is more transformative than others, and he has a lot of haters. And with him always watching the full videos, that is probably one of the things that Linus is against.
IMO 99% of these reaction channels are virtually useless. The last 1% put in the time and effort to provide some analysis (with examples that they usually made, like transcribing a song) but it's mind blowing to me how the overwhelming majority of them get views in the first place.
as far as music reaction channels, I think it's actually beneficial for music of artist to have these reaction channels up. they expose a lot of music to people who may have not have found them before and promote the band. these reaction channels are the same as MTV to ten count down and album review shows that not only help the artist but help reach a larger audience. this is the new MTV/Radio that needed to happen.
Only one thing to add. The channels that do the analysis and breakdowns are good. I've seen channels that sit through songs or just make some generic "whoa"/"no way" remarks just to breakup the video.
MTV stopped showing music videos because the recording industry wanted MTV to pay them, instead of the recording industry paying them to show music. MTV ceased to exist as a "Music" channel in 1998. The problem with react content is that the recording industry wants you to pay them for even having the audacity to have music on your channel, and it flies in the face of how people actually use music. A youtube channel is not a radio station, and people are not going to use it as a replacement for listening to the music on like itunes, unless that music isn't available to begin with due to incompetent licensing by the recording industry.
@@hop-skip-ouch8798 yea there are clearly 2 different types of those music reactions there are the lazy ones that are fake as fuck (like some 50 year old being like "listening to michael jacksons thriller for the first time") and then i've seen some kid listen to full hiphop albums with his dad and after each track talk a bit
I usually do a musician interview, then create a playlist with some of their songs and the interview placed towards the middle. Not a massive driver of views, but I think it strikes a good balance.
The best part of lmg clips is that i can just view the discussions that i want, it makes it easier to find these discussions and interact with people who clearly are interested in this specific content
I see the black and white of the argument. To throw some gray and a solution(?), why not "DE-monitize" those videos? Not ban them, but NOT let the "Reactionary Party" make a penny off the video/content and the original creator gets a free plug? No one gets sued. Reaction videos would fade away (no money in them, for reaction). I have a content creator that I like/hate watching and they (guy & girl) openly admits that reaction videos are their favorite (bulk of their channel), because they can film multiples in a single day and go on vacation, handing the work to the editors and content gatherer (someone lines up the content that they react to, they are a good $ize channel). They like to cover "spicy" content at the end of the videos and ALWAYS push it to the edge, guidelines wise. They also complain and cry when they get a strike/short ban when stuff slip by and ask their fans to "crusade" (hint) for them. They take an extended vacation when they do and when they come back, they just pick up where they left off... Mini rant over... In the long run, YT doesn't really want to stop any of this because they are, in the end, making $$$$$$$$$. If someone were to make YT responsible, they would make stricter rules and all of it would fade out. Don't mess with YT's $$$, they will ban you quick.
low effort reaction content is not only damaging to the creator of the original video, but to the users also as the site gets littered with copies. countless times I have searched a video by its original tile and i've encountered this promient react streamer followed by like 10 of its videos reacting to other content. I couln't care less about this guy and I have told the app to not recomend channel, only for some time later to be recommended the same guy reacting to a video I was actually looking for.
The problem lies entirely on TH-cam for allowing this in the first place. They could have a functionality to link the original video you're reacting to and views and part of the revenue goes to the original creator. If you don't link the video, your account could get strikes. This way, react channels would contribute to the original creator and improve the whole situation. This is an issue create by TH-cam because they did nothing to fix it.
wait... did... Linus just indirectly declare that America's funniest home videos is perhaps the first big reaction channel? damn now he got me thinking.
I find the concept of "partial claim" to be highly sensible and it's perplexing to me that it is not an available option. It would allow creators more flexibility in determining the amount of claim they want to assert on their content. For instance, if someone only used a small part of my content, I may not claim it at all, whereas if they used the entirety of my content, I would claim 100%. Moreover, if they added something to my content, but not as much as the first example, I would claim 15-30% of it. This is particularly relevant in cases where a video is 1, 2 or 3 hours long and my content is used in only 5 minutes of that video. In that scenario, I should not be able to claim the entire video, even if they completely copied my material. Instead, I should be able to claim 100% of those 5 minutes (giving me something like 8.5% for 1 hour, 4.5% for 2 hours, 2.5% for 3 hours). I believe this system is logical and fair. The counterargument to this would be the amount of manpower required to handle the nuances of such a system. Therefore, perhaps creators should be given the option to "work it out" themselves. For example, if I claim a video for 40%, the creator I claimed it from should be given the option to accept, deny or counter my claim. If they counter for something like 27%, I can then decide to accept their counter, deny it or counter their counter, and so on. If they can't reach an agreement, it can be escalated to Google, or even the legal system if necessary.
Counterpoint: Rambling for 8 hours after showing a movie in full. It's only 15% of the video! Rambling for 8 hours in between the movie and having "a random fan" post the timestamps to skip the rambling. People already circumvent the rules, you cannot codify this in a fair and objective way.
@The Program Google could literally just change the terms of service to make a rule of "if a reaction video uses a video from youtube for youtube, then that original content creator is entitled to a split of the ad revenue". By the wave of a magic wand they could update the terms to accept that within reason, other people on the platform is entitled to make reaction content out of it. The algorithm could then provide you with video suggestions from the original creator, even. This whole thing just feels to me like Google lacks the legal creativity to make the most out of the situation as it is now. People watch reaction content not just for the personality, but also the curation.
@The Program - It does though. TH-cam posts videos from creators on Facebook and more without asking for permission. They are _already_ doing it, and adding a partial ad revenue claim to reaction videos seems fair *within the platform itself* . If it's on Twitch that's not the same.
WAN Show timestamps does not have an ending to it while watching WAN Clips have ending. You don't know if the topic is finished or not unless you check timestamp again. Checking every WAN Shows stamps to find topics that i want to see is a hassle. It is easier to just see a WAN Clips video with a tittle. You know what will you see and it has definite ending to it. Also seeing 10 minutes videos is more comfortable than seeing 3 hours videos. Atleast those are my opinions on why i like seeing WAN Clips than WAN Shows.
50% of the Reactors income should go to the original Video creator. That was a solution hugely discussed in Germany a few years ago. But TH-cam ignored it so nothing happened.
I don't think 50% is even enough, for most reactions it should be close to 95% to make it even remotely fare, which would make react channels unviable. The worst part of reaction channels is not the impact on the creator they are reacting to, but to the whole youtube market
@@itsdarkos I'm saying this in relation to those "insightless" lazy reactions, if you are doing a transformative use, of the bare minimum of the original content then you shouldn't have to pay at all, as it is fare use. A revenue split only make sense for reactions that don't fall under fare use, in that case it should be up to the original creator to set how much or opt out of such system. I said 95% just to illustrate that for a video that took, let's say two weeks to be made, a 50/50 split would be extremely unfair if all the other part do is give minimum commentary over it.
I haven't watched the video yet, so this is my initial stance: Reaction videos have a fantastic place, at least so far as I use them, in the entertainment industry. If you've ever watched an amazing show that really made your blood pump, or saw that moment that made your whole body tingle the first time you saw it, you'll know that no other viewing will be quite as magical as that first one. Being able to go out and watch other people react to something for the first time actually helps YOU get that fix too, as if you're able to relive some faux version of that initial first-time experience. Also if you're lonely and have no friends reaction videos help you feel like you're part of a community sometimes.
This is why copyright in the age of internet just doesn't make sense. Once a work is out there, it's out there. Consent/permissions to use copyrighted works is absurd and can't be regulated/enforced. Go back to royalty system like radio used to have. Have recators link the works to a royalty database for the content they are reacting to so that content gets a percentage of revenue generated. Everyone is happy. Musicians/labels get a cut of reactor content, films studios, and the OG content creators on youtube. Maybe you make an exception for political campaigns but thats it. Creators are just going to have to accept that their work will be used in ways they didn't intend and that's unavoidable ,but if the mechanism exists to make money off it regardless than its at least fair. I guarentee reactors would gladly handover a percentage of their revenue to the original rights holder if it meant they could keep monetizing their channel without worries of their channel being de-monitized overnight.
The clips are also nice for people like me who wants to throw on something for my commute to work or a quick lunch instead of getting half way through a multi hour long podcast and pause or "come back to it" when I go for my next commute/meal. Instead I can click on a roughly 20 minute video and know that it'll finish as I get to my destination or that I've spent enough time eating. Long form content is great for people exercising, hiking, stocking shelves in the back of a store, or toiling away responding to emails. But I think a lot of people just want clear concise topics that's in a smaller digestible form. Instead of having to leave in the middle of a topic, find the video in their viewing history, then come back and try to remember what was being talked about before. It's "one less plate to balance" when juggling an already full day.
I think reaction videos can be interesting and fair if whoever's reacting is an expert of the content being reacted to. For example, SailorVince watching Internet Historian's 'Cost of Concordia'.
I have no interest in watching a 1 or 2 hour podcast, even an LMG one. But when you clip one up into specific topics (even up to 20 mins like this) I'll watch it, and be excited a new one is up. It's 'just easier'. It doesn't matter how well designed and curated something is, if it's just easier then I'll watch it. Same goes for a TechLinked with Riley in the thumbnail... it's an instant watch.
Content ownership and use of copyrighted content are so hard to fully wrap your mind, laws, rules around.. I think we have a long way to go with it. So many examples both ways can be imagined, and where the 'balance' lies is very ambiguous and subjective.
Reacting to your own communities submissions is part of your own channel the same way a house tour or something like that would be. Its practically impossible for the same issues to arise in that and they are simply not comparable. "Reaction content" as the term is commonly used refers exclusively to reacting to things that aren´t related to you in that way, to "outside stimulus" in a way.
It's a weird one, i mostly like watching reactions to movies and music to watch someone enjoy it, like getting your friend to watch your favourite movie, you don't need them to stop the movie every 5 minutes and analyse it you want them to enjoy it, but of course it needs to be transformative you can't just air someone elses work for free. On the flip side i think reaction videos are pretty much entirely a positive thing, while i usually only watch reactions for things i've already seen or heard they have put me on to stuff i wouldn't have found otherwise, big streamers and TH-camrs make things popular all the time, and the effect from smaller content makers is negligible to the degree that it's not even worth worrying about, so i hardly see the negatives to reaction videos. Some people are going to watch the reaction and not purchase the movie, but those people probably weren't going to watch the movie anyway.
There are some content creators that frequently do reaction content and add a lot to it. and they've exposed me to channels i would never have found otherwise. Honestly the most sensible solution to me would be to make it kinda "official" I can think of a system where the reaction video is played in parallel to the original, etc.
@@gytux0258 Watching you watching another video in full length is not a reaction video. That is a viewing party. A reaction video can use small snippets from original content, but not the entire thing. And you need to bring something new to the table. Like Corridor Crew that discusses how some of the CGI is created in movies. They don't sit on their couch watching an entire movie without adding anything.
@@DerBärator its the one where you sit and go "haha, based" and don't say anything else for the next 13:43 and say "alright, peace out, thanks for watching, bye :D"
I think someone who does reaction videos fairly well are the sidemen. They tend to either react to their own content/edits that their team put together, or videos that have multiple parts which funnels viewers who found that video interesting to watch the other videos in the series on the original channel such as daily dose of internet.
daily does of internet posts mostly memes or 10 seconds of interesting video with random author who doesn't really make anything from posting this video online (except for maybe likes). While someone like let's say internet historian, does 1 video per year and would like to get his time back in money, it's his job. Someone like xqc does 10h of sitting and watching documentary videos with real work behind them (and memes) and posting it on youtube without chaning anything, like cutting video to only include portions where he adds something from himself. For penguinzo does it and it doesn't take away reason to watch video which he reacted to from viewers. Also multi-part videos are almost always watched by streamer in the same stream, or as soon as it comes out, so why should stream viewer go watch said series by himself when he could watch youtube's video reaction alternative with same content just cut the parts where you do nothing you lazy mf
What makes react content so successful is the fact that it validates the viewer. People want to see other people appreciate the things they find good because it validates their opinion. Proper react content, by my own definition, is where the audience is expected to have already seen the original work and is sharing in the experience of watching someone else see it for the first time. If what you're reacting to is new to both you AND your audience, I would not consider it to be react content. TH-cam feature request: I don't know how the logistics of this would work but I think it would be a cool feature for TH-cam if you could get a live Picture-In-Picture of other TH-cam videos overlayed over your video when doing reaction content. It would effectively work the same way as playing two videos simultaneously. This would behave as if the viewer is watching the original video just with the person reacting with full remote control of it. (You would be able to use TH-cam editing features to pause, play and skip to timestamps.) This would mean anyone watching the react content would be giving actual view statistics to the original video. As far as Ads go, if either the original or react video start rolling ads, the whole thing is paused for the ad to play. Depending on which video the ad was triggered, that video would get the revenue.
The Clips Channel does well because people are more likely to watch a video about one topic they are interested in AND they can comment about the one topic below the video without worrying about it getting lost in comments about the whole WAN show.
yes. Even when watching the full show, I usually wait for the timestamps and just go through topics I am interested in and skip the rest.
Well said. This is why I prefer 20-30 minute videos in general, and especially when time is limited.
asmongold is the worst thief, all he does is react.
Also it works better internationally because of timezones...
Also, you know what they're going to be talking about before you click on the video. With the full WAN show, the title only shows one of their topics, so you have to start the video, find the timestamps guy in the comments, read all of the timestamps for what they talk about and manually skip through with them to watch what you're interested in. Or you can just wait for the clips channel to upload the single topics that you personally care about.
It's the reaction channels whether just sitting there eating or just watching the video and making comments like every minute are the ones that are the problem
It's a shame there's about 100000 of those for every reaction channel with compelling things to add
That's all reaction content is however. The "X reacts to Y" type of content only works if X has special insight, and in that case it's not that different from "X plays Y game" that happens to simulate their job.
All react content, is ultimately lazy, meme-material. If you are doing react content, and only react content without reaching out and asking, then you're not even adding any value to it. And this is why you see a lot of compilation videos of random tiktoks, those exist "to react to", because lots of people on youtube and twitch don't use tiktok. Likewise TH-cam compilations of twitch clips. If you are live-reacting to something on Twitch, that is a different experience from "making a video of reacting to a video"
@⚠️Don't visit my channel
That channel name is brilliant if you're a scammer.
Now I'm tempted as fuck.
@@Kisai_Yuki I highly disagree. React content is not about adding expertise. That's a different type of content.
React content is where the viewer shares something that they like with someone who is seeing it for the first time. In which all behaviors of the person reacting are important because it expresses their feelings of what they are watching at any given moment.
Why else do you think that "uncut" reactions are so popular that people are willing to pay money on Patreon to access them?
Viewers don't care if it is (or want it to be) transformative. They want the original content+ the reactor's raw reaction. That's it.
@@R3_dacted0 That's not what is being argued here. Whatever the viewers want to see is irrelevant to the content that is being posted. React content does not provide anything useful, unless it is expertise. It's brainless content, which to be fair, is highly profitable and wants to be seen. But like Linus said, it's not like this is really helping smaller creators who try and say don't react to me and then get bullied.
There are "reaction" channels which offer little to no additional content to the original video. Those are problematic at best.
However, there are also reaction channels which absolutely add real value, and are truly transformative works. Musicians, composers, vocal coaches, singers, dancers, choreographers, filmmakers, etc. who not only react but analyze the content based on their professional skills and knowledge.
These channels absolutely deserve to be considered in a completely different light to the average "reaction" channel.
Cinema therapy is a perfect example what a transformative work can be. Totally not the same content.
@@jimmypatton4982 The charismatic voice is a brilliant example of that.
A musician listening to a song and explaining the music theory or meaning of the lyrics or whatever, that isn't react content IMO and is definitely transformative enough to be covered again IMO. Same with someone reviewing a movie or even analyzing it and showing short clips here and there.
However if they simply watch a video made by someone else, start to finish and don't add anything more than in the moment reactions, yeah in that case they should be required to get permission from the original creator.
It shouldn't even be a question. You couldn't do such a thing with a movie or a TV show, so why would it be okay for a shorter form youtube video? It's still an original and copyrighted work is it not?
That said, I have watched stuff that would fall under the latter category. I have people who make their own content that I watch, and if they make a video reacting to another video, yeah I will find it interesting. But just because I watched it doesn't mean I think it should be allowed across the board, they should get permission or not make the 'react' video. Simple as that.
@@no_nameyouknow I watch people who react to songs and give their opinion on them, and I actually enjoy that content, I like to see people discover new music, and see what they think about it. They analyze it but not to the level that vocal coaches, etc do. But I still think it is valuable. But however, one thing that ALWAYS happens is one of two things: The videos get stopped before getting posted, so they know it is gonna get blocked, or they get DMCA'ed and taken down, or what happens most often, is that the music flags the money going to the copyright owner, as you will see it being credited to the artist in a standardized format below the video.
I've been watching so many WAN clips that I've decided I'll just start watching the whole thing. The nice thing about the clips is that they chunk up the show to sprinkle into a variety of videos being watched throughout a session. I think it's good that both are offered
@lovegaming4114 sure bud
Helps with millennial attention spans as well. I've watch LMG videos for many, many years including WAN show, but as I grow older, it's harder for me as an adult to sit down for that long to watch it even though I want to, there's just not enough hours in the day. These clips make me feel like I get more done. Every new video I click on has a renewed attention span lease per se.
@Love Gaming stop replying with spam and if you think your computer is actually in trouble, get some anti-virus and/or go post your issue on the Forum.
@@happinessiskey2858 They are probably just a bot but I'll agree that its really annoying lol
I really want to watch it too. Too bad it's at like 5 AM for me
21:50 it's because watching clips is easier than the whole LAN show. I often run a clip to watch during a meal or procrastinate for a few minutes and having 10-30 minutes epised give me a much better idea how much time I'll spend watching it, whereas on a 3.5 hours video I might sink for longer than I wanted to. Honestly I'm not sure if I ever watched any WAN show entirely as a one video, but I'm watching almost every clip you upload here from it
Well said! The time management aspect is a big one for me as well.
I actually just download it on my phone and listen to it like a podcast while I'm working
I will watch the entire show if they have a mega topic or something, but I'll watch the clips that interest me. I used to leave the show on the second monitor and watch it Monday morning, but the clips work just as well and I get to skip the boring stuff.
I like multi hour content I can listen to while working. But I can see how someone who is watching in their spare time, wouldn't want to sink in so many hours.
Reaction channels pollute search results for the thing they're reacting to, annoyingly. It's a first world problem but definitely something TH-cam ought to address
What can they do, it brings in a lot of views
The TH-cam channels love reactors. They're free to DMCA the reactions if they want
@@MasterKey2004 Those views would just go somewhere else on TH-cam. Doesn't matter to them that these particular channels have these particular views.
@@MasterKey2004 youtube should offer video pass through, where it identifies the original and shows up the views on both videos and gives like 70% to the original. It's their own platform they should be able to do this fairly easily
One of my favourite TH-camrs is Rick Beato who does incredibly detailed analysis of popular music. His videos are absolutely transformative, he only plays snippets of the original songs (played by himself) and he goes into the musical theory behind them. By any sane definition this is fair use yet Rick doesn't even bother to try and get ad revenue for any of his videos because they will be flagged. Worse still some of his best videos have been blocked by the original music owners despite the fact that Ricks videos are love letters to the songs and would make anyone want to go and listen to the original track.
if he does what you're describing it's not react content. it's another thing. react content is people staring at a video while the video is playing and maybe throwing in one or 2 words sometimes.
@@MrA6060 check teeaboo, he will do what you describe and then speak for 1 hour or os about it, all out of 1 20m episode, 100% valid reaction content, and mainly what it should be.
I remember awhile back it was discussed that certain TH-camrs were being targeted by music labels. I think Rick Beato is one of them. The crazy thing is that Rick Beato has connections in the music industry.
There are several in the music reaction scene actually analyzing and diving pretty deep into the stuff they react to (TankTheTech, Elizabeth/TheCharismaticVoice and Michael Palmisano immediately come to my mind), and several artists have openly praised them for what they do and collaborated with them in interviews, livestreams and actually in providing content for them to react to.
So the reaction scene in itself is a spectrum too.
yeah but even lazy react content is still widely beneficial to the music scene. whereas pretty much every other art form, react content is mostly theft especially for people on the platform whose entire identity revolves around being a reactor
I wasn't the biggest fan of the WAN show but I've found myself hearing it more and more over the past few weeks.
Same man linus is just too based
it was pretty garbage for a bit.... but its returning to form.
I've never been able to watch it live, and had no interest in watching the full vod afterwards, but the clips mean that I can watch the sections separately, though it does mean I'm missing out on some of the content
I didn't watch the WAN Show until you started doing clips. The reason I love the clips, and watch them all (which basically makes up an entire episode of the WAN show at that point) is I que up a bunch of videos to listen to at work, and I like interspersing them with other content. For example: LMG Clip, gaming news, LMG Clip, car video, LMG Clip, health video etc. And, when you release clips in a 2-3 day period, it makes it easier to watch them all vs dumping them all in one day. Clips are great, and you do them really well.
can't agree more (or disagree less? dang how do these words work)
@@OfSheikah Disagree less sounds hostile for some reason
I’m glad you specified in the beginning “the way _some_ creators approach react content”
There are so so so many LAZY channels who pump out videos 3, 4, even 6 times a day - zero editing, very little commentary, basically just watching someone else’s content without providing any reaction whatsoever! They value quantity over quality and it drives me INSANE. There’s a very _niche_ group of people who do it this way, too.
The clips channel really is useful. I usually looked through the timestamps to see if there were any topics that interested me but now TH-cam just recommends the topics I want and automatically tracks my nonlinear progress through the podcast.
I remember back in the day when people complained about Jinx and how awful he was and now some of the biggest twitch streamers do content that is very similar, even worse when they walk away or are eating through out the video. Yet they are defended so much now.
I was thinking the same thing. I almost feel bad for Jinx. It is weird how much hate he got when now Pokemane, Hasan, Critical, XQC and ASmongold all do the same thing everyone claimed to hate Jinx for and no one cares
@@doomdimensiondweller5627 There is a difference between what some of those streamers do, versus staring at a video and offering little to no opinion on what is happening. Asmon gets shit all the time because he'll turn a 20 minute video into an hour long reaction. I don't think that's comparable at all.
@@Chopstorm. That honestly doesn't track cause Asmongold said it himself that he wants all of his reactions to eclipse priority with the algorithm while using other creators to do so. Asmongold has always had an ulterior motive for why and how he does his reactions. He's not anymore different than Critical or Hasan. They're both in it for the easy money and they're running to the bank while playing in people's faces.
@@wangdangatomictango Provide a link for that statement?
@@wangdangatomictango asmongold channel should be banned ..lazy content
I am so glad you mentioned the popularity of the clips channel in this video. As a severely affected ADHD individual, the thought of sitting through a 3 hour talk show is absolutely daunting. Three hours of my day is a long ass time, and the thought that I’ll hyper focus on it and blow off everything else I have to do riddles me with irrational anxiety 😂.
LMG Clips is super digestible, and I can watch one or two on my lunch break or after I get home. It made me a little sad in the past, though, knowing I was missing some of the inbetween antics and small segments that aren’t important enough to make it into the clips.
However - Since discovering that the full WAN Show is on Apple Podcasts, I’ve eaten that shit up. I drive constantly(couple hundred miles a day) for my day job, and I LOVE listening to podcasts. Videos for me require my undivided attention, I can’t mentally rationalize leaving a video running in the background for some reason, but I can listen to a podcast while I’m driving around inbetween visits and deliveries.
Finally, someone who gets me.
This is the same for me. Clips are so much more easily digestible for me
As a person with ADHD 7 hours vids are my favorite one (i do have ADHD but this is still a joke don't ping me if somehow someone finds this offensive)
Tl;DR but I did read the comments reacting to it
@@ScipiotheAfricanus that’s honestly normal.
ADHD can be better framed as a lack of ability to control your attention. Most of the time this looks like a lack of attention at all, but sometimes you play the same video game for 12 hours straight, or watch the entire 7 hour video in once sitting lol (this can also show up as you _finally_ getting to work, and someone comes to ask you a simple question and you get as annoyed as they just told you a stranger’s cat just came in your house and pissed in your shoes. There’s a certain about of effort going into beating that resistance to getting work done, so when you finally get past that and someone comes and interrupts you…you just don’t have the energy to really engage normally so your anger/frustration drives the response…the same way it probably is what is driving the work in the first place, because it won’t get done unless you berate yourself into a frenzy and finally work)
Personally, if I am actually watching, I like the clips show, if I am at work then the long-form episodes are great because I _need_ background noise when I’m doing boring tasks or I will get in my head and mess something up because I’m just…not always capable of paying attention to what I am doing. I try really hard, but you get that moment at the last second where I lose focus and drop something or something slips out of my hand or whatever (ah, reliving childhood trauma. Yes dad, it is hard to hold a flashlight sometimes. Idk why. Yeah I guess there is just something wrong with me. I know you never had these issues as a kid. I wish I was different)
When it comes to reaction channels, i always wanted a website which displays a reaction video, and the original video, and sync them with timestamps in the description. This would allow ads and give views to the original, but a system like that would probably not work.
The clips are great as I get to keep up to date with what you are up to without having to set aside the time.
It also helps when you want to comment on a specific topic without the fear of the comment getting lost on the sea of comments about the other topics of the show.
But it probably will get lost in the sea of comments anyway, but there is a chance it wont :D
Apart from the "fair use" issues, I feel that the only react content that could be considered actually good is a creator "reacting" or more accurately "commenting/analyzing" aspects of content related to their personal skills or fields.
For example, a lawyer reacting to and commenting on legal things in both media and the news (ala LegalEagle) is decent react content,
while a couple of random dudes just emotionally reacting to anime episodes without even constructively commenting on it is trash react content and a plague on the youtube landscape.
In the metal music scene some react channels have really been embraced, getting early access to music videos to be able to do simultaneous releases.
I recognize that this is a niche case, since music videos are released to promote the artist. They're not really made to make money, so all views are equally valuable.
But this topic is complicated. React videos really balance on the edge of legality
I just came from a reaction video to Ren's 'Hi Ren'. He's an unsigned artist and therefore youtube is likely a more significant part of his income than for a signed artist (at least that's what I expect despite being truly clueless on it). But Ren has been active in the comments of most of the reaction videos i've seen, and has, I believe, even made a list of each of the reactors that have covered him on his own website to promote them.
The release of that particular song by Ren is the first time I've really wanted to watch react videos (it had significant impact on me personally and I wanted to see how others took it too), but the whole phenomenon is still kind of bizarre to me. It is certainly of dubious legality, and now I don't really know if it would be to the benefit of specifically musicians to get rid of them altogether. A few weeks ago, I would have said they rarely offer value to anyone, now I just don't know if that's true.
@@rikiba851 the legality in many cases is dubious at best. But the actual law doesn't really matter, what matters is what the copyright holders want.
A number of music reacters do offer added value to the viewing though. Equipment used, song technique, composing patterns.
Then there's the shared emotional experience too. Emotions do amplify similar emotions.
@@Irthex Yeah, the added value is definitely there for some music reactors i've seen. The one i watched earlier was Michael Palmisano, and I came away from it with a small lesson about diminished thirds, and a book recommendation. With others, the shared emotional experience is exactly what I got, and wanted.
Watching reactions to the ending of Lorna Shore’s ‘into the hellfire’ is brilliant.
Reacting to music is a bit different than reacting to a video content, since music is more replayable
Reaction videos are OK so long as they are heavily focused on reaction or critique and just uses short clips of the OG content. The problem is most reaction videos show the whole OG vids so the original creator looses out.
There's also the big issue with being a smaller creator - it's not even a 100% revenue vs ignoring it, for most people at the bottom it's full on copyright STRIKE or ignore it, no option to claim. (would love to have granular claiming options)
You're mistaken about copyright claims being all-or-nothing; you can be claimed and then have the claimant share the revenue with you.
I make a lot of synopsis content - usually I'll go in and distill 55-60 minutes of dense, expository content into a more digestible, (ideally) better-paced sort-of summary vid. They're not reaction videos; they're fully scripted and edited and voiceovered and all that. It's without a doubt transformative, but I always try to be considerate of not making the original content _redundant._
That said, I've encountered other channels who _literally_ just play the whole series and then say "the next video is called [whatever]" before playing it. It completely eliminates any need for anyone to watch the original video, and that's not okay - it's not fair use. It's obviously not transformative enough if upon watching it there's _no reason_ to go back and watch the original.
I will say, TH-cam _does_ make it very easy to take down videos reacting to your content, to the point that I was taken aback. Whenever I've had videos hit the trending tab, I get a ton of messages from other creators asking for permission to react to my content. This is because if they don't, there's a _very real chance_ that a creator will automatically take down your reaction video for matching too closely to your own.
I of course never utilize that; I believe in people's right to react.
The main reason why I watch react videos is because of my music taste. None of my friends enjoy the shit I listen to so when I watch react videos, it's like I'm watching a friend listen to a song I showed them. When reacters enjoy something I enjoy, it makes me happy
There was a channel I watched several years ago that made reaction content to a kids show. At the time, there was a LOT of controversy about reactions overall. This person created a "Reactor Permission List" online and actively messaged EVERY SINGLE content creator he knew. Whether it was a channel that he wanted to react to in the future or not. Many times he was asking channels that other people were reacting to already without permission. He took ALL the responses he was able to acquire and organized them on the online doc what level of permission a content creator was okay with giving people who react to their content. He even included a section for each person and specified any and all requirements each content creator required. And every entry included an attachment that showed proof of the discussion between himself and the content creator(s), including their overall answer and rules/guidelines.
MANY other reactors actively used this list as an overall reference and some even tried to reach out to even more content creators to help expand the hundreds of channels that were already on there. Sadly, he doesn't make reactions anymore. But there's no doubt that the doc he made was INVALUABLE for the several years that it was being supported for!
I love that!
One of the reasons I love the retro/synthwave community is because so many of the artists are DMCA safe and one of the channels I follow (Nightride FM, maybe? can't remember exactly, but I've got it bookmarked somewhere... lol) even has a running list on their site of artists who have explicitly spoken on their stances with citations for each.
You are referring to the document titled "Mlp Reaction Permission List" from 2016. "IDEA MADE BY BRONYMONSTER44 & PIEDISLIKERSWAG. SPECIAL THANKS TO PEGAJEN FOR HELPING!"
@@stragerneds Late to reply, but yes the list from Bronymonster44. That was the list I was referring to.
I was glad when ya'll finally made LMG Clips, because I don't have to sit through a 3 hour live stream to get the one nugget I found interesting or relevant. a 3-30 minute video on a single topic is much easier to digest. Not that I have any issues with long form content or the WAN show itself, but Clips just makes it easier to get to that one thing.
I think a really good reaction channel being "the charismatic voice " an amazing channel where she talks not only about her passion for vocals, but instruments and tone. Yes she reacts in all sorts of ways, but its also educational and not over the top
And her venturing in the world of Will Ramos was amazing given those videos she made. I agree with you
I had this idea that probably is very stupid, but you guys tell me what you think about it: what if the original videos used by the react videos were embedded in the react video they show up in, kinda like a video playing within a video. This way, the original copyright owner would be getting views and potentially revenue from the react videos that use it. The react channels could choose which clips of the original video they wanted in their video, and when the original should be paused, for example, to explain a comment they make or something. These adjustments would be done in an editing software directly on TH-cam. I do, however, foresee some problems with this method: the sync of ads - both videos would have to play ads simultaneously, and maybe the distribution of the ad revenue could be a little tricky. Besides, there's also a problem if the react channel links a copy of the original video instead, which there are tons, depending on the popularity of the video. Idk, it was just a silly idea I had while watching this, I don't know if something similar already exists or if there's some impossibility that prevents it from existing that I'm not seeing.
I dunno, that sounds like effort.
Which these reaction channels don't like.
@@SparrowwithaMachinegun Yeah, I could definitely see some channels not wanting to do it, mostly because it requires some effort from them and also because they would need to divide revenues with the original copyright owner (which they, currently, don't), but if it was done to avoid legal confrontation between 2 parties, then I could see it being beneficial. But then again, if the original video creators are small parties, then there's just no incentive for the reaction channels to comply (since small creators don't have the means to engage in legal actions against reaction channels), unless TH-cam took serious actions to prevent this blatant use of copyrighted material under a supposed "fair use" to take place, which I'm not seeing it happen any time soon.
The issue with this idea is that it blurs the line between a fair reaction video and a video response. If the line is too tight on seeing the length of the video, then react channels will cut small parts and make off with the revenue. If the line is too loose, then channels which are video responses to other channels content would be flagged as reactionary content when they clearly aren't.
Another oversight of this idea is content that is not available on TH-cam, such as TV shows or movies, that sometimes people react to and that could not be linked to, since it's not on TH-cam to begin with.
@@alderstifen7738 Yup, that surely is an issue too, but it's still preferable that the original creator gets some revenue this way, rather than nothing at all (or much less than they could be getting, because there are some reaction videos that instigate people to go watch the full video).
Oh... Linus has a good point. Partial claims would be amazing! Or partial sharing where the uploader can proactively choose to share a percentage of the video revenue with the channel who's video they're reacting to.
Video game commentary channels have been asking that since it's inception, basically around the time COD4 came out and Capture cards and microphones were getting cheap enough.
But TH-cam seems to see that as too much effort and go for an All or Nothing approach.
That's basically what Machinima was created for, to fight legal battles for a new precedent.
@@thepaddedcell8140
I'm more for 80/20 in favour of the original creator. One had 15min of effort, the other at least 15h.
@@Alias_Anybody sometimes is weeks of work for a reactor to play it in one sitting while sometimes not even watching it. Also a lot of these big reaction channels as soon as anything gets claimed they will rather take the video down or private it than let the claim (no copyright strike, just claim) go thru .
@The Padded Cell
This is late, but I have to reply. The vast majority of reactors would be overjoyed to get 50% of the ad revenue. At least 90% of their videos are copyright claimed and they get nothing. That's why they all have Patreon and push it, because if they had to depend on ad revenue, they'd starve.
@@mikkj1this is just plain wrong because Everytime reactors get a copyright takedown they make a big deal about it on socials Wich they wouldn't if it happened often
honestly I hope TH-cam finds a way to have a reaction video system, say like you're watching a reaction video, TH-cam would load the video the Reaction TH-camr is watching while they are reacting to it (and you can set the quality of the two videos separately), this also could come with the benefit of splitting the money made from the video while adding views to both videos.
there should also be two separate like and dislike buttons, one for the reaction video, and one for the video reacted to.
this is just an idea I thought of, I'm not too sure how TH-cam would implement this feature for videos but it would definitely improve reaction content and make it genuinely valuable to the creator of the video, I just hope TH-cam is prepared to make a system that works for reaction videos to reaction videos, which would be cool.
There's also "watch along" reacts, where they only embed about the first minute of the original so you can sync up the original video with their react, and everyone watching along plays the original video as well.
22:25 I don't know myself if its a good thing to be in this camp of viewers or not but I find LMG clips to be more digestible than watching full WAN VODs or even live WAN. Mostly it's about keeping my interest, having a procured 5-25 minute video dedicated to a certain topic is a lot easier for me to watch and stay engaged with. I feel guilty saying this but the few times I watched WAN I had it in the background for a significant amount of time. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, I enjoy having background content while I go do other things (in that case I was working on a model kit and needed something to fill the silence and snipping), but I also found myself coming back to the highlights and really understanding what you guys were saying.
I think the point Luke is trying to get at is viewers of channels like Philion for example, are not interested in sitting down and watching a documentary on sugar daddies and sugar mommies. They are interested in laughing about how hilariously bad it is with the creator and the rest of the community.
Can't wait to see Asmonbald react to this and try to justify his bullshit take on clearly stealing content. He'll probably go with something around how innovative and transformative his reaction is truly is, we couldn't be smart enough to grasp it.
After learning that a Reaction video can completely destroy the original & make TH-cam promote itself over the original. No.
It should be banned. It can easily take 90% of the views from a video & TH-cam in turn punishes the original creator. Some even get flagged for copyright on their own content because someone else reacted to it.
Main reason I watch WAN show on LMG Clips is cuz I can look at a title and say "Hey, this looks interesting to me". I might watch the equivalent of an entire episode of WAN Show in 1 sitting, but I get to pick which topics I watch and which ones don't seem interesting to me.
Reaction videos are good when the reactor is a sort of expert on the field they're reacting to, basically adding some value or insight to the original piece.
Edit: Linus is absolutely right, the Corridor Digital's series with experts breaking down movie scenes is a good way to 'reaction'. It adds value and insight.
darn it you have made me found the answer as of how Linus would interpret the ideal reaction content
welp not watchin this clip full now, thanks
sometimes its not about if the content is "based on other people effort" , the problem with react contents is that its still taking from the overall views of youtube that could have gone to original content .. i suggest watching dark viper au series on this he explains it in great details
@@Killmaster7 Yep, but in that case, what is the chance of viewer conversion? What would be the upside for the original poster? If you were unlikely to see the video before, the chance that you now decide to go and watch other videos from the same original poster is minuscule. I know that I have myself seen many many reaction videos in the past and I rarely watch more videos of the same original creator. Linus mentions this around 9:15.
This isn't a problem when the reaction video is transformative and actually adds something of value to the original video. And by this I don't mean a guy sitting there reacting to it live and laughing every so often, pausing the video and telling a joke or giving some shitty and unimportant opinion. But I mostly mean creators that watch the video beforehand, provide constructive criticism or additional important information to the original work.
@@twanlange2827 "Jetlag the game" saw massive growth from Ludwig reacting to it on stream. They are part of nebula/curiosity stream and the platform saw the highest number of signups in a day ever the first day he watched it on stream. There are a ton of people I watch on youtube because of streamers/reaction videos. Just because the pipeline does not work on you does not make it not work. Summoning salt is another good example he wants streamers to watch his videos since it always leads to new people learning about him liking his content and watching his back log of videos. Obviously people should respect the creators wishes, but I think in general react content does legit help the original video creator. I do not think there would be so many sizeable creators actively promoting streamers watching their content if they did not see it working on the backend.
@@Aritcheyy Just because the 'pipeline' works for you doesn't mean it works either.
Either way the argument isn't that if a reacter hadn't watched a video that all of the views they got on their reaction would go to the original video.
The argument is if reactors didn't exist the views and the money they get would go to people who make their own original content. You could argue that in that case the total amount of users/hours watched would go down but there's really no way to know for sure.. Anyways watch DarkerViperAUs videos if you really care
@@_Riux Im alright not a fan of him after his attitude about the GTA no hit run got finished by someone else first. Just his arguments around that are enough for me to care 0 about his opinion on anything else.
@@Aritcheyy so just because he was mean one time his argumentens arnt valid? Or are you just putting ur fingers in your ears and going lalala, and are using this as a cheap way to not watch a different perspective. That might change how u see react content
Reacting to community submissions is reaction content, but a completely different type.
I think if you are reacting live on twitch with no editing then it shouldn't fall under fair use. It is not possible to transform the content while eating your delivered fast food or while you are gone to the washroom. The rare exceptions do exist if you are pausing and analyzing the video though.
A few of the Twitch channels I watch said they feel uncomfortable if they don't pause and at least try to make commentary on it. Also, plugging the original video is a big help. I recently saw a random channel 10x in subs because their video was watched and the video linked in the description and shouted out.
@@Matkatamiba Pausing a video occasionally is very weak justification. Sure it makes them feel better, but it's not going to make all the stolen money and views go to the original creator. Just because you stole a thousand dollars, an insignificant feel-good donation to charity won't make it any less of a crime. And subscribers don't matter. I'm subscribed to a hundred channels that I don't get a single recommendation from, because I don't watch their videos actively.
@@Matkatamiba Do you remember The channel name?
@@Creepus_Explodus you can point out how pausing in lieu of fair use is weak justification but you cant also deny how traffic and discoverability works on the web. You can make the anecdote of not coming back to channels you sub to, but your experience wouldnt reflect the rest or all of users especially for example from mainly twitch to yt. I pesonally wouldnt have cared for a lot of topics / channels have i not been exposed to them through twitch or other third parties, im sure there are others who reflect my sentiments as with yours but you cant just deny third party exposure exists or subs dont matter - if youre content is good, people will keep coming back, even the chance for that happening is worth something and even smaller creators struggle to get. I feel the system could be cleaned up and just on a by youtube platform basis you can make embedding / react parties have more of a designated system than just a dm / claim here type thing (this is obviously an oversimplified approach to a problem id say is more complex than youre making, but while i dont hold the answers i mean to not say there arent problems on both sides and there needs to be clearer standards / a change in the system). On a by etiquette basis (for now, should be the norm tbh), i think creators need to make it clear who made the video and link to it.
@@itsyeaboi5333 If it really worked that way, then react channels wouldn't grow. They would die out as their audience goes on to watch the original creators. This is clearly not the case, as the top "reactors" on Twitch are constantly growing, showing that the viewers would rather watch along with somebody eating in the corner, than to seek out the original content. If you actually cared about the video being watched, wouldn't you want to watch it undisturbed on your own?
Yes, you pick up topics that you like, that's how humans work. You can't like something without first being exposed to it, and these "reactors" act as content curators. A tiny fraction of people will actually seek out the source and explore beyond what is shown on stream. But the vast majority will sit in chat, and tell the streamer to watch the new video uploaded by a channel, rather than watching it on their own.
But again, you can't justify theft with an insignificant donation. The "reactor" gets the views, they get the paid subscriptions and donations, and they gain the long-term audience. The original creator gets a tiny fraction of the viewers who either had the decency of giving something back, or were genuinely interested enough to seek out their content instead of being in their favourite zero-effort streamer's chat.
You get pissed when a large corporation steals from their workers and their customers. Is the parasocial relationship with the hopes of your favourite streamer noticing you in chat enough justification for the same theft? These streamers steal from the original creator and exploit their audience for donations - all while doing no work whatsoever.
Dark viper au has a great number of videos on this
Linus should go commentary tracks to some of his videos, like the thinking about retiring one. Not only would it be fun to hear him squirm watching some of these, but also hear him break down these with his thought process then and perspective now
youtube will soon implement that soon once their multi-language audio system works out
One of the things I’ve noticed is that a lot of people mistake that “is this commercial” standard to mean “if I don’t make money on this, then it’s Fair Use”.
I’ve seen this a lot particularly in communities like Club Penguin, in which people seem convinced that the reason Rewritten was illegal was because they decided to start making money off of it.
What people don’t realize is that you can make zero money off your infringing work, and it’s still illegal.
Clips are also much easier to comment on, since each one is (generally) its own self-contained topic, and a viewer doesn't have to write some sprawling multi-paragraph comment to touch on every point they want to make.
A good example of higher quality reaction work is Corridor crew VFX artist reacts. I at least enjoy it and have learned so much from them breaking down VFX shots and stuff. Also it is a rather small portion of the work they are reacting to.
I also think react content that Linus is more referring to is so popular is because people find things they love or are pasionate about and like watching people react to it because it allows them to kind of relive their initial interaction with it. Kind of like living vicariously through these react channels to see them react to your favorite video or TV series.
i like react content from professionals that add value to other video, so if I don't know topic too good I can still watch it and understand it more
Exactly! I love watching professional musicians/producers react to a song and explain what’s going on so I can appreciate it more. I love watching chefs react to cooking videos and expand on the things we see so I can understand why that person made these choices or why a certain technique was used.
If they take the whole original work then it is still unethical. You don't have a reason to check the original content creator because you allready saw his entire video.
You should check darkviperau 's videos about react content. They are very explicit in how react content is bad, and he tackels it by every way of looking at it.
Pretty much this. I really love it when people in the know weigh in on clips or music that love.
Reacting to a video is worthless. ANALYSIS of a video, on the other hand, can be very interesting and educational
They need a better revenue sharing system for using copyrighted works.
This applies to music too
6:37 I would semi disagree here. It just depends on how often someone interjects. The reason I say this is I mod for a channel that will react to the whole video (leaving in sponsor spots even if the chat gets upset every time) and they react so much that it can take them like an hour to get through a 5 minute video. To the point that some in the chat complain he isn’t just playing the video. Which he responses you are here to watch my reaction to a chosen content. If you want to go watch the video, go watch the video.
So I think there is a case for it still being fair use even if it uses 99-100% of the original work. It just depends what’s added. Pacing is a big part of a good video and a streamer doing a lot of proper reactions to it can ruin it to the point people will later go watch the original work. If you are just laughing here and there or leave the video playing while you go to the bathroom…yeah that’s not fair use.
Also I love the idea of say the original creator being able to set how much they deserve from someone else’s use of their content. There could even be an option for negotiations. Since losing some revenue from a video is better than losing all of it.
One of the reasons I watch the Clips channel even though I watch the WAN show a lot is to see comments about the specific parts of the show
It really is the trickle-down economics of the creator economy
I think there should definitely be some sort of official system where the video maker and reactor can directly share revenue through an automated system. In some response video formats almost the entire video is watchable in the existing video for the sake of continuity, however the segments for discussion are often longer than the actual original video. Because of this, there is plenty of constructive content that warrant majority revenue, but there is not much reason to watch the original video, even with it being provided in the description. So I think a revenue sharing system would be the best compromise that would encourage actually adding proper substance to the original work, without removing revenue.
A friend of mine on tictoc, did a reaction video with a popular TT'er, got over a million views, that TT'er complained to TT, TT took down her video.... I can only assume that TT'er was jealous of her million views......
One major issue I've seen with react content is from big Twitch streamers. And it's not even necessarily their fault, people will clip an entire segment of their VODs where they reacted to stuff and then upload the whole unedited segment to a separate channel that isn't even associated with said streamer.
So the content thief gets his content stolen by another content thief. 😂
@@4m4n40 exactly
I've never watched the full wan show videos, but TH-cam always offers the clips to me on a silver platter and I watch every single one of them. It's not that I'm averse to long-form content, I just never even see the full version in my feed.
Clips are also way more algorithm friendly than long form, as people are way more likely to click on a shorter video with a specific topic that they're interested in than a three hour podcast. A bunch of clips is also just more chances or instances for the algorithm to pick it up rather than having all your eggs in one three hour content basket.
The thing with an entire WAN show is that I'd be interested in 30% of the topics in a given episode, but with clips I can choose which topic to view without scrolling through timestamps
Part of the reason the clip uploads of WAN show are so successful might not just be about digestibility, but marketability. It's very hard to sell a viewer on a piece of content which will cover xyz123, but making short and enticing headings for each component gives you a much larger 'attack surface'.
"Hot" take but I think XQC is one of the worst offenders of this. There are literally thousands of creators that do this, but he has by far the biggest reach out of all of them and he never actually adds anything to the content (and I say all of this as a fan). At least he always lets the in-video ads play all the way through though. If he only did this on stream I would be more okay with it, but having a channel that is dedicated to essentially re-uploading other creator's whole videos with the occasional "NO WAY DUDE" is just shitty behavior from someone that really isn't in dire need of that ad revenue
TH-cam would be able to save a lot of storage space if content creators could take a portion of their existing videos and make it appear as a separate clip video. That way they wouldn't have to store duplicate video.
TBH, TH-cam should probably have an easy solution for the copyright claim. Allow rights holder to mark the part that contains the copyrighted material.
There needs to be a way of linking such that watching the reaction also counts as watching the original content. Perhaps the original video only plays in a separate but imbedded window. The video can be from any source such as TH-cam, Twitch or Netflix which the viewer needs to log into to see. The react video could contain a syncing function that controls pausing and timestamp jumping of the original content, but would otherwise just be the reaction itself.
This is the ideal solution. I remember there being a website a few years ago that did this for watch-a-longs on Netflix. The viewer of the stream had to login to their Netflix account and it would do picture-in-picture video that was synced with the host.
This is is still not enough because it still steals the subs of the original creator
@@wolfbad512 I can think of a couple of things to do about that. Maybe they could have a system that autosubs you after you have viewed a certain amount of their content. Alternatively, have the sub button list the original creator first.
You could also reverse my imbedded video idea so that you can only view reactions from the original video page.
@@pcnoad I still don't like the idea of reactors profiting a lot from other ppl works in every other situation where ppl put the entire video in their own video they copyrighted but here you are trying to find a way to let them keep making lazy content that will always hurt the one reacted to
@@wolfbad512 If you paid attention to my original post I specifically proposed not having the original content within the reaction video. The reaction video would only be the reaction itself. The video being reacted to would have to be viewed from it's source. My last proposal required you to watch the original video from the source page with reactions as side content.
I understand that you may not find value in reaction content, but a lot of people do. It's interesting to see various perspectives. I've watched a lot of reaction videos to movies I own. It's like reliving the movie for the first time all over again. I agree that reaction videos should never be a market substitute. I just think why not find a technological solution rather than ban something people enjoy.
If we want to talk about the effort put in and how much it's worth, all I can say is that I can't control how much others choose to spend on that kind of content. I have yet to pay anyone for a reaction, but evidently some people do. Ultimately that's up to the market to decide that. Why not automatically have a portion of the money made by the reactor go to original content creator?
Luke is 100% right! When you say react content most people do not go to user submitted reactions. Everything Luke said is 100% true. Luke for the win.
from my POV, reaction vids stretch fair use, because some of them, have editors, comment censorship, MERCH, brodcasting schedules and line ups , paetrons for funding,
what got me, is one creator saying she can't cry for this reaction, because she has another reaction due later, which started to look like a sweat shop or emotion factory they go through.
it's an entire satellite industy around content which isn't theirs, i would still watch them, but it's seems to be a show of their own.
Reaction content I consume is content I'm highly unlikely to watch in a standalone form.
Would recommend watch Jay Exci's video on Hasanabi's react content.
The megastreamers really shouldn't be able to react to people's content for free. Streamers on 1mill+ a year should have staff that contact the youtubers, agree on a price, and then show it.
These streamers make 10s of thousands of dollars in a 10 hour stream & 1 hour of that is youtube reaction content. that money should go to the people they're reacting to. with the original creator's consent.
lol
21:40 Just wanna say, so glad this clips channel exists, even if it does stretch the definition of "clips" somewhat. Being able to watch effectively a full WAN show but chunked up into digestible portions is fantastic! I don't have the time (ok, the willpower) to sit down and watch a 3 hour talkshow (or however long the actual WAN show is), but 5-25 min video blocks? Fantastic! Especially the shorter ones too, as sometimes I just have a 10-ish min gap to fill in my day but most videos in my feed are 20+ mins long
I am totally guilty of watching a full reaction video but then not the original content... It's a problem. When you consider that I have watched entire videos from creators, but via a reaction video on another channel. I actually do this with Asmondgold all the time, I am a huge fan of his, but when considered this way, it really is a problem.
I also watch ads without clicking on them
asmon is pretty good at "transformative" though, he can react to a 15 min video and then talk about it for the next hour - although he watches the entirety, that's true
@@aonodensetsu Oh I 100% agree. I love Asmond. I think he is probably one person you could argue does it "right"... BUT, I am definitely guilty of watching a full video on his channel not giving the view or sub.
I must admit that I quite like watching some music reaction videos or movie reaction videos. Quite a lot of my friends do not enjoy some of the same music or films I like. I like seeing someone else's take on music and films I like and here their opinion. Basically like reading a review on such media, but you get to see the effect on the person reacting to it also. Also I get to relive films I liked from many years ago (sometimes from my childhood) without having to take time out to watch the full film. I also get to see or hear some stuff I never thought I would like and go on to discover more from that band etc. leading me to seek out and purchase albums. I don't understand reacting to another TH-cam creators content as I may as well just go watch that creator.
"Pretty much it" does this pretty well I think. They have audio commentary that you can play along side your own copy of a movie. There youtube videos also included clips of there commentary alongside the clips footage of the movie (definitely fair use, edited down, not a full replacement to the movie etc..)
copying is not theft, stealign takes without adding to it, when a react channel plays the whole video, he's adding to it, not copying. he is bringing the video to people that wouldnt see it otherwise. fair use and copyright is illogical, what's wrong is fraud, which is way different than copying.
I have to say recently I have been watching more and more LMG content. It’s really becoming a good media outlet. Hopefully they can do some other topics as well in the future.
Asmongold does react quite well as he'll watch a 15min video, pause it often and discuss/debate sections of it with chat and it'll end up being an hour long video. He reacted to the LTT review of his companies pre-built.
Yeah but with Asmon's audience nobody is gonna slam him because of the size of his audience. Some videos he is more transformative than others, and he has a lot of haters. And with him always watching the full videos, that is probably one of the things that Linus is against.
IMO 99% of these reaction channels are virtually useless. The last 1% put in the time and effort to provide some analysis (with examples that they usually made, like transcribing a song) but it's mind blowing to me how the overwhelming majority of them get views in the first place.
I love the LMG Clips, I don't have the time to watch a whole WAN-Show and I don't want to search in the whole video to see what I want to see!
as far as music reaction channels, I think it's actually beneficial for music of artist to have these reaction channels up. they expose a lot of music to people who may have not have found them before and promote the band. these reaction channels are the same as MTV to ten count down and album review shows that not only help the artist but help reach a larger audience. this is the new MTV/Radio that needed to happen.
Only one thing to add. The channels that do the analysis and breakdowns are good. I've seen channels that sit through songs or just make some generic "whoa"/"no way" remarks just to breakup the video.
Doesn't really matter if it's beneficial to the original creator. If they don't want it then it's up to them.
MTV stopped showing music videos because the recording industry wanted MTV to pay them, instead of the recording industry paying them to show music. MTV ceased to exist as a "Music" channel in 1998.
The problem with react content is that the recording industry wants you to pay them for even having the audacity to have music on your channel, and it flies in the face of how people actually use music. A youtube channel is not a radio station, and people are not going to use it as a replacement for listening to the music on like itunes, unless that music isn't available to begin with due to incompetent licensing by the recording industry.
@@hop-skip-ouch8798 yea there are clearly 2 different types of those music reactions there are the lazy ones that are fake as fuck (like some 50 year old being like "listening to michael jacksons thriller for the first time") and then i've seen some kid listen to full hiphop albums with his dad and after each track talk a bit
I usually do a musician interview, then create a playlist with some of their songs and the interview placed towards the middle. Not a massive driver of views, but I think it strikes a good balance.
The best part of lmg clips is that i can just view the discussions that i want, it makes it easier to find these discussions and interact with people who clearly are interested in this specific content
I see the black and white of the argument. To throw some gray and a solution(?), why not "DE-monitize" those videos? Not ban them, but NOT let the "Reactionary Party" make a penny off the video/content and the original creator gets a free plug? No one gets sued. Reaction videos would fade away (no money in them, for reaction). I have a content creator that I like/hate watching and they (guy & girl) openly admits that reaction videos are their favorite (bulk of their channel), because they can film multiples in a single day and go on vacation, handing the work to the editors and content gatherer (someone lines up the content that they react to, they are a good $ize channel). They like to cover "spicy" content at the end of the videos and ALWAYS push it to the edge, guidelines wise. They also complain and cry when they get a strike/short ban when stuff slip by and ask their fans to "crusade" (hint) for them. They take an extended vacation when they do and when they come back, they just pick up where they left off...
Mini rant over... In the long run, YT doesn't really want to stop any of this because they are, in the end, making $$$$$$$$$. If someone were to make YT responsible, they would make stricter rules and all of it would fade out. Don't mess with YT's $$$, they will ban you quick.
low effort reaction content is not only damaging to the creator of the original video, but to the users also as the site gets littered with copies. countless times I have searched a video by its original tile and i've encountered this promient react streamer followed by like 10 of its videos reacting to other content. I couln't care less about this guy and I have told the app to not recomend channel, only for some time later to be recommended the same guy reacting to a video I was actually looking for.
To be fair... I'd would love to see the react of anyone on LTT to movies like Hackers or Swordfish. That would be amazing.
if not for reaction content i would have missed a few bands i now listen to all the time
The problem lies entirely on TH-cam for allowing this in the first place. They could have a functionality to link the original video you're reacting to and views and part of the revenue goes to the original creator. If you don't link the video, your account could get strikes. This way, react channels would contribute to the original creator and improve the whole situation. This is an issue create by TH-cam because they did nothing to fix it.
wait... did... Linus just indirectly declare that America's funniest home videos is perhaps the first big reaction channel? damn now he got me thinking.
I find the concept of "partial claim" to be highly sensible and it's perplexing to me that it is not an available option. It would allow creators more flexibility in determining the amount of claim they want to assert on their content. For instance, if someone only used a small part of my content, I may not claim it at all, whereas if they used the entirety of my content, I would claim 100%. Moreover, if they added something to my content, but not as much as the first example, I would claim 15-30% of it. This is particularly relevant in cases where a video is 1, 2 or 3 hours long and my content is used in only 5 minutes of that video. In that scenario, I should not be able to claim the entire video, even if they completely copied my material. Instead, I should be able to claim 100% of those 5 minutes (giving me something like 8.5% for 1 hour, 4.5% for 2 hours, 2.5% for 3 hours). I believe this system is logical and fair. The counterargument to this would be the amount of manpower required to handle the nuances of such a system. Therefore, perhaps creators should be given the option to "work it out" themselves. For example, if I claim a video for 40%, the creator I claimed it from should be given the option to accept, deny or counter my claim. If they counter for something like 27%, I can then decide to accept their counter, deny it or counter their counter, and so on. If they can't reach an agreement, it can be escalated to Google, or even the legal system if necessary.
Counterpoint:
Rambling for 8 hours after showing a movie in full. It's only 15% of the video!
Rambling for 8 hours in between the movie and having "a random fan" post the timestamps to skip the rambling.
People already circumvent the rules, you cannot codify this in a fair and objective way.
@The Program Google could literally just change the terms of service to make a rule of "if a reaction video uses a video from youtube for youtube, then that original content creator is entitled to a split of the ad revenue". By the wave of a magic wand they could update the terms to accept that within reason, other people on the platform is entitled to make reaction content out of it. The algorithm could then provide you with video suggestions from the original creator, even. This whole thing just feels to me like Google lacks the legal creativity to make the most out of the situation as it is now. People watch reaction content not just for the personality, but also the curation.
@The Program - It does though. TH-cam posts videos from creators on Facebook and more without asking for permission. They are _already_ doing it, and adding a partial ad revenue claim to reaction videos seems fair *within the platform itself* . If it's on Twitch that's not the same.
@The Program Other way around -- TH-cam is posting _"youtube videos"_ or clips *to* their _"Facebook page"_
asmongold is the worst thief, all he does is react.
WAN Show timestamps does not have an ending to it while watching WAN Clips have ending. You don't know if the topic is finished or not unless you check timestamp again.
Checking every WAN Shows stamps to find topics that i want to see is a hassle. It is easier to just see a WAN Clips video with a tittle. You know what will you see and it has definite ending to it. Also seeing 10 minutes videos is more comfortable than seeing 3 hours videos.
Atleast those are my opinions on why i like seeing WAN Clips than WAN Shows.
50% of the Reactors income should go to the original Video creator. That was a solution hugely discussed in Germany a few years ago. But TH-cam ignored it so nothing happened.
I don't think 50% is even enough, for most reactions it should be close to 95% to make it even remotely fare, which would make react channels unviable. The worst part of reaction channels is not the impact on the creator they are reacting to, but to the whole youtube market
@@amrosk but isnt 95% quiet a lot if you contribute to the original? Like a expert react to
@@itsdarkos I'm saying this in relation to those "insightless" lazy reactions, if you are doing a transformative use, of the bare minimum of the original content then you shouldn't have to pay at all, as it is fare use. A revenue split only make sense for reactions that don't fall under fare use, in that case it should be up to the original creator to set how much or opt out of such system. I said 95% just to illustrate that for a video that took, let's say two weeks to be made, a 50/50 split would be extremely unfair if all the other part do is give minimum commentary over it.
@@amrosk Ohh yes i see. your right
That's exactly why I love this Channel. I can't watch the whole WAN Show but find Lukes and Linus Reaction interesting.
I haven't watched the video yet, so this is my initial stance:
Reaction videos have a fantastic place, at least so far as I use them, in the entertainment industry. If you've ever watched an amazing show that really made your blood pump, or saw that moment that made your whole body tingle the first time you saw it, you'll know that no other viewing will be quite as magical as that first one. Being able to go out and watch other people react to something for the first time actually helps YOU get that fix too, as if you're able to relive some faux version of that initial first-time experience.
Also if you're lonely and have no friends reaction videos help you feel like you're part of a community sometimes.
Luke is 100% right about viewer submitted clips not being react content. Or atleast not being the react content that everybody thinks of.
This is why copyright in the age of internet just doesn't make sense. Once a work is out there, it's out there. Consent/permissions to use copyrighted works is absurd and can't be regulated/enforced. Go back to royalty system like radio used to have. Have recators link the works to a royalty database for the content they are reacting to so that content gets a percentage of revenue generated. Everyone is happy. Musicians/labels get a cut of reactor content, films studios, and the OG content creators on youtube. Maybe you make an exception for political campaigns but thats it. Creators are just going to have to accept that their work will be used in ways they didn't intend and that's unavoidable ,but if the mechanism exists to make money off it regardless than its at least fair. I guarentee reactors would gladly handover a percentage of their revenue to the original rights holder if it meant they could keep monetizing their channel without worries of their channel being de-monitized overnight.
The clips are also nice for people like me who wants to throw on something for my commute to work or a quick lunch instead of getting half way through a multi hour long podcast and pause or "come back to it" when I go for my next commute/meal. Instead I can click on a roughly 20 minute video and know that it'll finish as I get to my destination or that I've spent enough time eating.
Long form content is great for people exercising, hiking, stocking shelves in the back of a store, or toiling away responding to emails. But I think a lot of people just want clear concise topics that's in a smaller digestible form. Instead of having to leave in the middle of a topic, find the video in their viewing history, then come back and try to remember what was being talked about before. It's "one less plate to balance" when juggling an already full day.
I think reaction videos can be interesting and fair if whoever's reacting is an expert of the content being reacted to. For example, SailorVince watching Internet Historian's 'Cost of Concordia'.
I have no interest in watching a 1 or 2 hour podcast, even an LMG one. But when you clip one up into specific topics (even up to 20 mins like this) I'll watch it, and be excited a new one is up. It's 'just easier'. It doesn't matter how well designed and curated something is, if it's just easier then I'll watch it. Same goes for a TechLinked with Riley in the thumbnail... it's an instant watch.
I'm glad Luke stood his ground on what a react video is. He was right the whole time.
Content ownership and use of copyrighted content are so hard to fully wrap your mind, laws, rules around.. I think we have a long way to go with it. So many examples both ways can be imagined, and where the 'balance' lies is very ambiguous and subjective.
i'm gonna wait and watch hassan eat lunch to this
Or better, see his chair's opinion on this
Reacting to your own communities submissions is part of your own channel the same way a house tour or something like that would be. Its practically impossible for the same issues to arise in that and they are simply not comparable.
"Reaction content" as the term is commonly used refers exclusively to reacting to things that aren´t related to you in that way, to "outside stimulus" in a way.
It's a weird one, i mostly like watching reactions to movies and music to watch someone enjoy it, like getting your friend to watch your favourite movie, you don't need them to stop the movie every 5 minutes and analyse it you want them to enjoy it, but of course it needs to be transformative you can't just air someone elses work for free.
On the flip side i think reaction videos are pretty much entirely a positive thing, while i usually only watch reactions for things i've already seen or heard they have put me on to stuff i wouldn't have found otherwise, big streamers and TH-camrs make things popular all the time, and the effect from smaller content makers is negligible to the degree that it's not even worth worrying about, so i hardly see the negatives to reaction videos.
Some people are going to watch the reaction and not purchase the movie, but those people probably weren't going to watch the movie anyway.
There are some content creators that frequently do reaction content and add a lot to it. and they've exposed me to channels i would never have found otherwise.
Honestly the most sensible solution to me would be to make it kinda "official"
I can think of a system where the reaction video is played in parallel to the original, etc.
But that doesn't make it a reaction video. That is a "watch this video along with me" video.
@@sjokomelk what?
@@gytux0258 Watching you watching another video in full length is not a reaction video. That is a viewing party. A reaction video can use small snippets from original content, but not the entire thing. And you need to bring something new to the table. Like Corridor Crew that discusses how some of the CGI is created in movies. They don't sit on their couch watching an entire movie without adding anything.
Transformative react videos are completely ethical.
@@DerBärator its the one where you sit and go "haha, based" and don't say anything else for the next 13:43 and say "alright, peace out, thanks for watching, bye :D"
basically... communication is key, like always. reaching out, asking creators, getting permission.
I think someone who does reaction videos fairly well are the sidemen. They tend to either react to their own content/edits that their team put together, or videos that have multiple parts which funnels viewers who found that video interesting to watch the other videos in the series on the original channel such as daily dose of internet.
daily does of internet posts mostly memes or 10 seconds of interesting video with random author who doesn't really make anything from posting this video online (except for maybe likes). While someone like let's say internet historian, does 1 video per year and would like to get his time back in money, it's his job.
Someone like xqc does 10h of sitting and watching documentary videos with real work behind them (and memes) and posting it on youtube without chaning anything, like cutting video to only include portions where he adds something from himself. For penguinzo does it and it doesn't take away reason to watch video which he reacted to from viewers.
Also multi-part videos are almost always watched by streamer in the same stream, or as soon as it comes out, so why should stream viewer go watch said series by himself when he could watch youtube's video reaction alternative with same content
just cut the parts where you do nothing you lazy mf
@@MKKL1 yeah most streamers usually don’t add much to content they usually are just reacting to fill hours of their obligated stream time.
Dude i cannot commit to the full wan show. So much more digestible here
What makes react content so successful is the fact that it validates the viewer. People want to see other people appreciate the things they find good because it validates their opinion.
Proper react content, by my own definition, is where the audience is expected to have already seen the original work and is sharing in the experience of watching someone else see it for the first time.
If what you're reacting to is new to both you AND your audience, I would not consider it to be react content.
TH-cam feature request:
I don't know how the logistics of this would work but I think it would be a cool feature for TH-cam if you could get a live Picture-In-Picture of other TH-cam videos overlayed over your video when doing reaction content. It would effectively work the same way as playing two videos simultaneously.
This would behave as if the viewer is watching the original video just with the person reacting with full remote control of it. (You would be able to use TH-cam editing features to pause, play and skip to timestamps.)
This would mean anyone watching the react content would be giving actual view statistics to the original video.
As far as Ads go, if either the original or react video start rolling ads, the whole thing is paused for the ad to play. Depending on which video the ad was triggered, that video would get the revenue.