… at the time the company that held the IP dmca’d the video, and it takes a while to make a 4 hour video? Also when the video was taken down by legal action, other people uploaded it and found out what was really happening that way. Even when the video was struck, IH didn’t come clean about his transgressions. What is your argument here really?
And if copyright infringement like this doesn’t concern you, that’s fine it doesn’t have to. But there are certain rules that content creators are deemed to follow, lest they run into this exact criticism. You can scoff and scowl at that fact, but that won’t make that simple reality disappear.
And for what it’s worth, lifting the entire article near verbatim in a video you then make money off of without so much as crediting it is, at best, shitty, and at worst a crime. Do with that what you will, but it certainly isn’t a fly.
You strike me as someone who will not engage with this in good faith and who will instead just root for Internet Historian come hell or DMCA. You could prove me wrong but I mostly wrote the above for other passers-by.
We are talking about 6 MONTHS. Also I can only hope that the dirt between Riley and IH has been sufficiently and satisified concluded for both of them. They owe us, the consumers including HBomberguy, nothing.
All I’m doing is questioning the timeline and why some third party had the urge to dig up dirt.
The current reupload is still a poorly credited rewording of Riley’s article, and it still lifts the article wholesale in wording, structure, facts and research. Even the pacing is the same.
IH didn’t come clean about the copyright infringement, choosing to instead dodge any questions regarding the matter. Now if this was just some spat between creators that we didn’t need to get into as an audience, that wouldn’t be as much of an issue. But the problem with copyright is, either you credit publicly and clearly, or you will be called out for it publicly. It is the same in academia, where a lot of this rigor stems from in the first place. I’m entirely sure the author could claim the current reupload. We won’t know if they have had contact before this version was reuploaded, but we can safely assume they didn’t have any contact whatsoever to greenlight his first upload.
Addressing transgressions like this is also necessary, if not vital, to the YouTube and creator ecosystem that also has to keep itself in check. If you step out of line, you risk this very thing happening. And then it doesn’t matter if it is 2 days or six months or three years, or even older (as Hbomber also points out, there was some deeply racist stuff in IH’s uploads that have since been deleted).
============================
Just watch the video dude
============================
The current reupload is still a poorly credited rewording of Riley’s article, and it still lifts the article wholesale in wording, structure, facts and research. Even the pacing is the same.
And that would be something between the article writer and IH, no?
but we can safely assume they didn’t have any contact whatsoever to greenlight his first upload.
That’s all we can do, yeah.
Addressing transgressions like this is also necessary, if not vital, to the YouTube and creator ecosystem that also has to keep itself in check.
By making a drama out of it on public stage so that others, like HBomber, can benefit from it as well? I don’t see how that’s beneficial.
Just watch the video dude
I mean the Wine video was pretty great and informative, and I’ve watched it before this hit the fediverse. But thanks. (Also I’m not a dude.)
