My point is more that youtubers earn their fans by putting out content people like to watch. H3H3 puts out reaction videos (along with sketches). The idea that, by earning fans through making reaction videos creators can somehow become bullies if their videos get too popular is just asinine.

Bear in mind that the judge specifically pointed out that “your” video cannot act as a market substitute for the original.

It still sets precedent for other people outside the area. Judges like to use former rulings in a similar vein for their rulings.

The judge spends about five pages talking about fair use. It starts on pg.5 of the ruling under the heading, Fair Use.

So condescending and dismissive. YouTube is a medium just like film or television. No better or worse. Lots of it is terrible, but there are many talented, creative and hard working creators on YouTube making amazing content.

Matt Hoss?

I assume this is Matt Hoss’ burner. You’re insane dude.

Also, do you realize they haven’t raised any money? The gofundme was created by a fan not specifically for h3, but for a lawyer to use with ANY fair use copyright issues that will eventually arise in the future, for ANY content creator on YT.

Wait, are you actually taking Hosses side on this one?

Bold Guy vs Parkour Girl

And in terms of subscriber base, the H3H3 couple certainly comes off as a big bully.

Now is a good time to point out that the couple behind the H3H3 channel aren’t necessarily angels.

It’s not binding precedent, but it’s suggestive precedent. Most judges are much more likely to go with a side that has an established case, even just at the federal district level, than making new law out of whole cloth.

So the fact that H3H3 has more fans makes them bullies? Would they be more morally acceptable if they put out a shitty product no one likes?