The article is false by claiming that H3H3 mocked Matt Hoss. They in no way broke fair use law by using bits from his video since they were used to criticize Matt Hoss and his video. Mockery is defined as “making fun of someone or something in a cruel way” while criticism is defined as “the analysis and judgment of…
Whygodwhy
why-god
“Comedian”
You seem like someone who’s unfamiliar with both the Kleins and Matt Hoss. It’s as if you wrote this article because it’s one of the bigger stories on Reddit, YouTube, Twitter and other websites around the net and you know it’ll get you some hits because it has H3H3 winning their lawsuit in it.
Matt Hoss original wanted to extort Ethan and Hila for $4,000. When they didn’t bend the knee he most likely sued them out of rage that they didn’t comply and didn’t truly know what shit he got himself and how much support H3H3 has all over the Internet.
And in terms of subscriber base, the H3H3 couple certainly comes off as a big bully.
“Big bullies?” You’re kidding me right?
You write like someone very unfamiliar with H3, which is a bit absurd considering this is Gizmodo. Nothing H3 does is bullying, anymore than the Onion is a bully for writing a mean thing about a celebrity. It’s satire, it’s mocking, and 90% of the people they mock enjoy it, benefit from it or generally are too big and…
Gotta disagree with this article’s characterization of H3 as “bullies” in this scenario. If anything, Matt Hoss’s videos pervade bullying against women in public. He still managed to get 170 THOUSAND people to subscribe to him. That’s not nothing.
I can’t believe he could even find a lawyer to take the case. This is literally Fair Use 101, and there was no way he was going to win it.
Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.
Bear in mind that the judge specifically pointed out that “your” video cannot act as a market substitute for the original.
No, That’s not what H3H3 did AT ALL. Your analogy is absurd and you clearly don’t know anything about the case.
i’m not sure why this article needs to imply that H3H3 are unethical. A lot of subscribers does not automatically make a channel a “bully” and calling out questionable, terrible content and bad behavior by other content creators is not merely “stirring up up shit” as the author suggests.
Having watched the Parkour Girl video, I’ll need a few moments to hit myself in the head with a hammer until I forget that I watched the Parkour Girl video.
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?
And in terms of subscriber base, the H3H3 couple certainly comes off as a big bully.
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?