YouTuber Extortion? MxR Plays v. Jukin - Real Law Review // LegalEagle

⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Jukin Media demands MxR Plays pay $6000 for three meme videos! Is it EXTORTION???
Get the 11 Myths of Online Copyright for FREE: www.copyrightcourse.com/myth
Get more info on the subject!
Richard Hoeg's video on the subject: • KZbin’s “MxR Plays”:...
Leonard French's video on the subject: • Jukin Trolls Itself - ...
©©©©© Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you (15% OFF!):
www.copyrightcourse.com/yt
⚖️⚖️⚖️Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my PRELAW COURSE:
legaleagle.teachable.com/p/pr...
★ A Few of My Favorite Things★
🕵️♂️My Custom Suits: legaleagle.link/indochino
👔My Ties: fave.co/2ImLY9I
📎My Tie Clips/Bars: amzn.to/2WIQ6EE
🔲My Pocket Squares: amzn.to/2UfsKtL
💈My Hair Product amzn.to/2Ui2aQx
📸My Video Camera Setup www.amazon.com/shop/legaleagle
Summary of the dispute from the BBC:
MxR and Potastic Panda are known for making videos where they react to memes and other online content. But it turns out four videos they watched have been bought up by a media company, which has slapped them with a bill for infringing its copyright.
And unless they pay, their channel could now be removed due to the nuances of KZbin's copyright system. A channel receives a strike against it if a copyright owner formally notifies KZbin that a copyright infringement has taken place. Receiving three strikes, according to Google, results in a KZbin channel being "subject to termination". MxR Plays is a KZbin channel which often involves 'reaction videos' - where people film themselves reacting to anything from memes to movie trailers. MxR and Potastic Panda, the KZbinrs who host the channel, say they have received four copyright claims in the same bill from Jukin Media, with Google yet to be notified. Their joint channel has 840,000 subscribers - and MxR has a personal following of more than two million.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to Real Law Review by LegalEagle; a series where I try to tackle the most important legal issues of the day. If you have a suggestion for the next topic leave your comment below.
And if you disagree, be sure to leave your comment in the form of an OBJECTION!
Remember to make your comments Stella-appropriate. Stella is the LegalBeagle and she wields the gavel of justice. DO NOT MESS WITH STELLA.
★More series on LegalEagle★
Real Lawyer Reacts: goo.gl/hw9vcE
Laws Broken: goo.gl/PJw3vK
Law 101: goo.gl/rrzFw3
Real Law Review: goo.gl/NHUoqc
All clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Typical legal disclaimer from a lawyer (occupational hazard): This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos!
========================================================
★ Tweet me @legaleagleDJ / legaleagledj
★ More vids on Facebook: ➜ / legaleaglereacts
★ Stella’s Insta: / stellathelegalbeagle
★ For promotional inquiries please reach out here: [e-mail]

[@LegalEagle]

© Are MxR’s videos are fair use? If so, why? 🕹Get the 11 Myths of Online Copyright for FREE: www.copyrightcourse.com/myth

[@babyboomer6272]

Thanks dude.

[@LegalEagle]

Ok, boomer.

[@jackwhitty4938]

LegalEale can you do a review of Shake It Up episode Judge It Up and see if it's accurate with the case it shows.

[@pantherspride409]

@@LegalEagle Uno reverse on you

[@babyboomer6272]

@@LegalEagle Goddamn it man......

[@Crymeth]

The fact that it can cost millions of dollars to defend your rights, should be illegal itself.

[@austinmcmullen7428]

Ya why go to court and spen millions for trying to not pay not even 25% of that

[@RicochetForce]

Agreed, it does nothing more than turn the legal system into a weapon for the wealthy and corporations to use against the poor.

[@raphaelforkel7759]

In fairness, many lawyers work on contingency. Meaning they only collect on their fees (and sometimes a cut of the settlement money) if and when the case is won. So when you turn up to a lawyer with an airtight case, or a case where the Lawyer is confident he/she can win, it will be "free".

[@Nightknight1992]

well, thats america^^

[@ARUCARDFTEPES]

@@austinmcmullen7428 That's part of the reason the claim demands a certain amount, it seems unfair but is potentially much cheaper than going to court even if you win. ( I realize he basically says the same thing in the video )

[@militaryMP123]

STOP ADMITTING TO SHIT! best legal advice ever given.

[@jamalcolmson]

#NOTLEGALADVICE

[@captainrooster9214]

#NOTLEGALADVICE

[@TabularConferta]

For anyone watching this a year plus later. Settled out of court, everyone was "happy" with the solution. Some of the fans of MxR doxxed Jukin employees. At current MxR have 1.5 million videos, so yeah not small.

[@user-arujono]

Man, there’s always going to be those few people from fanbases that dox

[@tumbledortrickster6504]

They also have a second channel which I believe is at 2 million subs as well

[@kidShibuya]

That sucks. I leeches that call themselves content creators. If you are a content creator you dont need to rely on content being created so you can have a video...

[@tumbledortrickster6504]

@@kidShibuya I never thought of it like that, I don't believe they are trying to be a "reaction channel" they just do a series of reactions to reddit & facebooks groups now, but it was mostly a modding and adult modding review channel at first

[@anska7475]

Thanks! I wondered how this had ended after listening.

[@discopotato675]

So, this makes a lot more sense why they switched to strictly reddit post reactions

[@Capnsensible80]

A lot easier than actually doing commentary. If MxR just did things...better, they would never have been in this situation. Make the video you're reacting to small (failing to do so makes the copyrighted video the focus of YOUR video as well instead of your "transformative commentary") not your reaction to it and say something more than "oh wow!" as a reaction. They basically just show a video then go "OH COOL!" That isn't transformative by any definition of the word.

[@shanleysamaniego4726]

@@Capnsensible80 same to pewdiepie that what all he does

[@LSqre]

@@shanleysamaniego4726 reaction content is lazy content no matter who does it pewdiepie is an awful creator anyways

[@dogmasotherside]

That won't change copyright law.

[@shinji4487]

Best legal advice ever "Stop admitting stuff online"

[@SanaSamaha]

2nd best legal advice ever: get a lawyer.

[@epmcgee]

They really should have kept all of that behind doors, and only brought it forward once it was all resolved, if at all.

[@tutuadefolalu3661]

I agree. I feel bad for MxR but tbh they are acting like kids. Kids who, from the look of the “reaction vids” aren’t very good at this KZbin thing in terms of providing meaningful commentary. They also commit the cardinal sin of having the copyrighted content take up the majority of the screen. And, as stated in the video, not getting a lawyer from the start. And playing like you’re some poor “mom and pop” KZbin channel when you have tens of thousands of Patreon subscribers? Jukin is about to take all their money if they don’t check themselves.

[@jay__damani]

Disclaimer : none of the advices above are meant to be taken as legal advice.

[@MsJavaWolf]

Just pilot the robot

[@Bigfoot_With_Internet_Access]

"The good news is they might have a defense... The bad news is that they might not have a defense" This is big brain time

[@LegalEagle]

The law be like that sometimes.

[@ashleewoods9205]

Big brain moves

[@anthonycoffey1992]

@@LegalEagle Seems like the law is always like that.. when copyright is involved that is.

[@rob_i208]

In the event of a robot apocalypse remember your paradoxes: This Statement Is False!, Does A Set Of All Sets Contain Itself?, Is This Fair Use?

[@Solkard]

@@anthonycoffey1992 That's pretty much the premise behind copyright extortion. The amount of money it takes to get a court to determine that is simply beyond most people/parties, so their only option is to pay.

[@MythicBeanProductions]

It should be reasonably affordable to go to court. The outrageous cost of defending yourself/prosecuting someone who wronged you is absolutely shameful

[@ChrisMWalker]

Lesson here: The lawyers win no matter who wins or loses.

[@rohansampat1995]

"i have had to deal with many copyright strikes myself" It takes a special brand of stupid to issue a claim against a copyright lawyer

[@MichuV5]

Some of them might be automatic

[@Xershade]

@@MichuV5 Strikes are not automatic.

[@6th_Army]

Even I've received a few. 2 of which on the same video of me walking in my backyard talking about how much snow there is.

[@JoshSweetvale]

@@Xershade Automated by a company, not KZbin

[@robertnett9793]

@@6th_Army SNOW(c) (tm) (r) is a registred trademark of Weather(r) inc. By using the word you are liable to pay $1000 for each snowflake in your backyard at the time of filming...

[@TherapyLizard]

Objection! This isn't immersive enough.

[@LegalEagle]

How about now?

[@TherapyLizard]

LegalEagle Much better. Thank you.

[@hopegold883]

😆

[@lkurkiril1731]

Install more mods for me plz than it will be

[@JamesRandom]

@@LegalEagle It's Immersive as F#€&!

[@beawolfe]

The reason I get aggravated with the big companies putting strikes on KZbin channels is because I suspect those companies aren't actually doing much or anything for the originator of the clips either. The dmca "industry" feels predatory, and the clip channels feel cheap. It's all-around exhausting and bad.

[@stevesaitz1706]

"don't listen to the quartering" is universally good advice.

[@Shade01982]

That guy just seems to be a troll himself...

[@kyab2815]

Yeah especially since I distinctly remember him making a number of videos talking about a woman who reacts to anime and calling her stupid for risking copyright claims and that she should immediately stop and remove the videos So he def doesn't understand copyright and his opinion depends entirely on if he likes a person

[@slonk420]

*flashbacks to him pissing in a trashcan during a stream because he didn't want to leave for more than a minute* Yeah, that's good advice

[@fragrantbloom]

True

[@ronchu6502]

established titles lol

[@indigozulu9]

"STOP ADMITTING TO SH*T" If you could boil legal advice down to just one sentence, that's the sentence.

[@upvotecomment2110]

God Damn Right! That's why rich people overuse the word "Allegedly" Unless proven, you are innocent! Stop admitting to sh*t

[@specialnewb9821]

And then all the true crime YTers will harass you endlessly because you acted "like you had something to hide."

[@TrenchantAtheist]

Unless you're Trump. In that case, it seems to be working out pretty well.

[@goukigp01]

Legal Eagle: Stop admitting to sh*t Best free legal advice ever.

[@rahulplett8854]

Doesn't help if your livelyhood is taken away by someone else and you have no control

[@es_three232]

#NotLegalAdvice 😂😂 you are right tho.

[@ever611]

"You have the right to remain in silence"...

[@Mr1und2]

#NotLegalAdvice tho

[@heyitsmejm4792]

@@rahulplett8854 they do, if they do a commentary instead of watching the whole clip and just says "thats cool" they could've a stand against jukin media..

[@madsfuldgas1166]

Honestly, being able to convey information seemingly without bias is so underrated, and you manage to do it so well. Thank you!

[@aashishdesai478]

As a lawyer who’s been in practice for over 25 years - this is nuts! Very interesting issue and video - fantastic work!

[@damien678]

I'm honestly curious if someone could make a reaction video that would be more easily protected by fair use since most are like this... Would someone that reacts by asking questions about what they saw in the videos and maybe seeking to use small clips like that to teach random facts be transforming the videos they're reacting to enough to be protected? It is honestly pretty interesting. Especially because a few content creators I watch have brought up how it directly hurts views and revenue of original videos when a big or bigger content creator makes a reaction video, or streams their reaction somewhere like twitch, like debate streamers commonly do. For a lot of people it's more worth their time to watch a stream like that - that watches an entire video on-stream, with the added content of the streamer's perspective - than to just watch the video itself. People also definitely won't then go to watch the video they already basically saw in its entirety. Again, definitely interesting and a bit nuts 😂

[@DutchDread]

Honestly, the fact that justice depends on money means our system is broken

[@olotolow]

Having a business men as president doesnt help ^^

[@davidburton9690]

@@olotolow go vote for the dude who has been stealing from you for 47 years or so, then!

[@epmcgee]

It's more like everything is built around a monetary system. The justice system simply enforces or reinforces the current economic system. In America, especially, it's entirely capitalist. Who can make the most money where and how, regardless of who this may affect.

[@epmcgee]

@@davidburton9690 It's great to see that the people of America have been conditioned to accept that there are only the options of 'valid' candidates. If the system is broken, if the choices you are given are exceptionally flawed, you need to do something to change them as a nation. People have power, and the government and other similar institutions simply try to redirect or defuse that power.

[@Xershade]

Okay so let's pain a picture, you've potentially done something wrong. You need to hire a professional because you're not sure you can handle the task yourself. Should your doctor expect to not get paid next time a surgery or should he tell you to do it yourself. The system isn't dependant on money, you can defend yourself its a right you have. Most people aren't stupid though and hire someone who knows what they are doing and it costs so much because it takes years to litigate this nonsense.

[@123456789heny]

What I learned is having a reaction channel is a risky business

[@evandavis5223]

Having a channel is risky business. Anything you post can be claimed or striked by anyone, regardless if they own the copyright or not. If YT figures out it's a false claim they can reverse it but that's a big if. Meanwhile you still lose money and potential viewers while your video is down.

[@TacComControl]

Pretty much this. Reactions aren't reviews, they're not really even transformative. They've always been in a legal dark area, but a whole mess of people say "BUT MUH FAIR YOOSE" as an excuse to say "I want to be able to weaken intellectual property ownership because it's convenient for me to not pay for things".

[@Willias]

Yup. Piss off the wrong copyright holder and you're in a world of hurt. There are things that can be done to help though. Namely, don't show the whole clip that you're reacting to. Either put a filter over the clip or cover up a large portion of the clip so that you're not using the full work. Link to the original sources if you want other people to fully see what you're reacting to.

[@stevencowan37]

@@TacComControl commentary is explicitly mentioned, and reactions are (to varying degrees) commentary on the work.

[@TacComControl]

@@stevencowan37 Except they're not. They're commentary on their OWN experiences while playing the entertaining body, not on the clip itself in almost every case, i.e. "It didn't make me laugh", etc.

[@JoshKeatonFan]

Who else is watching this exactly one year later?

[@benholroyd5221]

I'm watching 1 year and 1 week later.

[@6th_Army]

I just came here to see how this lawyer still has a channel. This video specifically. Where he breaks the number 1 rule of being a lawyer : never waver contradict your own sources.

[@benholroyd5221]

@@6th_Army who are "his own sources" that he's contradicting. He made clear at the start, this could go either way. He's not here to defend anyone, just to explore the current known limits.

[@6th_Army]

@@benholroyd5221 He listed a copyright attorney as a source for why he thinks Jukin would win. While that same copyright attorney said Jukin would lose. That is contradicting his own source. One of if not the worst thing a lawyer can do.

[@benholroyd5221]

@@6th_Army where? 18:20? he said he uses that case as an example of the bare minimum. He said he wouldn't advise either to go to court because there's a risk it could go either way. Are you referencing later where he says Jukin "effectively" won? Various claims were brought, most were thrown out straight away, including the bear one referenced. Some others couldn't be decided summarily. Both sides at that point settled out of court. Legal Eagle then hypothesises that Jukin received money in that settlement. If you're paying someone money for a case they brought without admitting fault you may not have technically lost, but they came out on top. There isn't a contradiction. Multiple claims were raised, some were thrown out by a straight away. Some were settled out of court.

[@cicelyhodges6577]

So, this is the most recent of the KZbin copyright/copystrike Legal Eagle videos I could find - and maybe this is a useless question - but I was wondering if @LegalEagle would do a video on the copystriking of classical musicians like TwoSet Violin and various orchestras who are playing music in the public domain, but still receiving copystrikes. This 2-year-late question comes from a recent video posted by TwoSet on Dec. 6, 2022 ("This has gone too far..."). Also, since the people involved are based out of Australia (TwoSet) and Singapore (the orchestra) and the copystricken concert was filmed in Singapore but placed on a US business's site (KZbin), is this still under US Jurisdiction or it be under a different country's JU? I didn't take international law in law school; but I'm thinking as long as the copytstrikers are US-based and the fact that it's on KZbin's platform, that US law would be an option if not the only one.

[@jankkobetoni5152]

Was going to post the exact question, but I see I can go practice now

[@cicelyhodges6577]

@@jankkobetoni5152 40 hours a day, every day - Ling Ling believes in you

[@LordDomielOfElysium]

Ayeee late gang ✌🏻

[@hitmusicworldwide]

International invocations of copyright law can vary depending on the country however it's also governed by all of the signatories to the Berne convention so that enables copyright to be enforced outside of the country where the initial copyright was registered sometimes sanctions can be greater outside of the United States then they are in the United States or vice versa I might be incorrect in this in terms of some of the details but generally I believe what I have written here is true.

[@ajlorentz]

Commenting to push this higher in the comments

[@TheKEITHD07]

Up until recently I've never heard of Jukin Media

[@jamesgoss1860]

If you've ever seen a compilation video from channels like FailArmy or The Pet Collective on KZbin or Facebook, then you've seen Jukin content.

[@vaevictus4637]

They should have stayed in the shadows.

[@sevennationarmy4753]

@@vaevictus4637 if they stayed in the shaows, not a lot of people would be aware of the possible risk of being copyright claimed by a legal group, so mxr basically put up a warning to be careful of using any clips for any video in case that junkin media has rights to it

[@ohauss]

@@sevennationarmy4753 On the other hand, they're motivating plenty of people to defy them... not precisely a good idea, business-wise. How much do you think they will get from an army of trolls in Russia?

[@juch3]

If you watch daily dose of internet, he's talked about how hard it is to make daily videos because almost all viral videos are copyrighted by Jukin media

[@NamekJedi]

I never expected this crossover what the hell lmao

[@gerardlacroix6015]

KZbin : Infinity War. January 2020.

[@athiefinthenight6894]

i had the exact same thought these channels are so completely different

[@blossom99-]

Namekian Jedi People in MxR’s chat were calling for Eagle to respond

[@SalamiSnake]

I've been subscribed to LeagleEagle, Mxr, and Quartering for å looooong time. Never expected this.

[@AndrewAMartin]

@@SalamiSnake Quartering sounds like a tool (and no, I'm not wasting my time to look at his channel).

[@_jonaldjames]

Ignoring literally anything Jeremy from The Quartering says is maybe the best #notlegaladvice given in this video.

[@zenenzarcon]

I'm glad you brought up how much MxR actually makes, including their Patreon. Like it is sleazy what Jukin is doing, But 6k would have been a drop in the bucket as opposed to tons of legal fees.

[@lasentinal]

Congratulations for the correct use of the word "Sleazy". It simply means "Unscrupulous" and has no sexual connotation whatsoever.

[@Frisbieinstein]

@@lasentinal It can mean either thing. No one controls the meaning of words, dictionaries notwithstanding.

[@lasentinal]

@@Frisbieinstein As an engineer, I understand the need for an accurate language, as do scientists, medical doctors and nurses, mathematicians and very importantly, lawyers. Changing the meanings of words is frought with danger. Imagine if words in the constitution or other legal documents, changed over time.

[@andysmith1996]

@@lasentinal That's why terms are defined within the statutes themselves or are defined by judges in case law. In general use, meanings change over time and that's a fact of life. "Sleazy" means more than "unscrupulous".

[@hairymcnipples]

@@lasentinal and yet it remains the fact that languages evolve naturally and that includes the meanings of words changing over time. Unless you only use "nice" to mean stupid or foolish and "awful" as a synonym for awesome I suggest you get off your high horse. Languages are meant to change, it's what they do.

[@BotJockey]

LegalEagle: “Let’s look at the clips in question” Me: “Uh oh...”

[@Raquya]

The reaction videos are fine. Its MxR's main channels videos that are rated R and got demonetized for it.

[@secret_8036]

@@Raquya and MxR plays is their way for monetization without sponsors

[@CoffeeStained]

"Let's look at the clips in question" *Goes to wrong channel *Stops posting LegalEagle clips until he finishes Skyrim and Fallout 4.

[@younger544]

Best legal advice to anyone ever: STOP ADMITTING TO SH*T!

[@tat3179]

And if your youtube channel is as successful as MxR or have a successful income system that is generating good money, lawyer up before making any business moves. The additional expenses is worth it. Dumb people see a lawyer after the shit has hit a fan. Smart people consult one so shit don't fly in the first place.

[@alexandrub8786]

"You have the right ro remain silent."

[@Marenthyu]

_THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE_

[@adidas-dd4dt]

Was just heading down to the comments section to say he needs to put that on a shirt.

[@CriaVielen]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/q57ZmKqOfrN9eKc The best example 👌

[@matthewconlon2388]

As a former art student (meaning I have 0 expertise but feel confident speaking anyway), I would argue the entire MxR reaction format is wholly transformative bc the people watching their channel don’t care which internet clips they watch, the subscribers are there to see the host reactions.

[@rorymoore4387]

Absolutely I wouldn't see these clips otherwise I watch it to see the dynamic of the Henry and Jeanie. Half the time it's their reaction that makes a everyday amusing clip more hilarious in fact sometimes it's their commentary explaining for comical effect what is actually what was funny about the clip. But if they did vids on watching paint dry I'd still watch cause it's Henry being inappropriate making Jeanie uncomfortable that entertains me.

[@Tomehawk95]

Be that as it may, that doesn’t mean the work is being transformed at all. Sure you’re not watching for the clips, but even so the clips need to be used in a transformative way or not used at all. The intent of the consumer has no affect on the legality of the creator’s actions (or lack thereof).

[@matthewconlon2388]

I won’t dispute the interpretations of the law given here, only that I think those interpretations are built on a flawed understanding of the artist’s work. If I do an impressionist painting of a building and sell the painting, should I have to pay the architect? Under the law, maybe; but really, my composition and skill in rendering the image wholly transforms the subject even if it’s still recognizably the building designed by the architect. Further, an artist literally took people’s instagram posts and blew them up and created a show where they sold for thousands and that artist wasn’t required to pay the ‘gramers for their work. It’s pretty clear the claimants are being vultures, I consider their business model morally bankrupt and bad for thought and art in general. Again, won’t argue about the legality, the law isn’t perfect, but screw these guys hard and I hope they not only lose but also maybe have an “act of god” annihilate their business and personal holdings. But that’s one nobody’s-on-the-internet opinion.

[@Tomehawk95]

@@matthewconlon2388 I agree that they are, morally speaking, in the wrong. I think it's really abhorrent to claim legal ownership of short videos online, and proceed to use said videos to take money from other people. I do still take issue with your examples, however. An architect is not paid by how many people use or see their building; they are paid to simply construct it. A painting of a building would in no way, shape or form harm the "claim" that the architect has to the building. Furthermore, if you painted your own picture of the building, that is your own rendition - a parody, if you will - and you would have the rights to that specific painting. In regards to Richard Prince, he falls under the same kind of kin as Jukin; Taking work that other people have done, and using it to make money in a very slimy way.

[@matthewconlon2388]

@@Tomehawk95 I disagree. The intent of the consumer in this case is what makes the claim. The claimant is saying "they're using 'our' IP to make money without our permission" (a dubious claim under the detestable copyright law they're abusing to make it) but the consumer is not going there for their IP, they're going there to observe the dynamic of the couple doing the reaction. If you're the type of person that can go to a theater and listen to a couple behind you loudly comment on the film for its entire duration and feel the impact of the film was in no way altered by their active vocal participation, then I believe you're in a minority. I think most would feel the film was ruined by their part in that experience. If you'd leave and ask for a refund, then it's pretty easy to see why playing clips found on the internet that this couple loudly comment on are wholly transformed by their participation. I was also pretty clear when I said I'm not going to argue the legalities at play as the law is not perfect. In this case I think it is in fact criminally flawed and affording a grotesque corporate parasite the option of harassing young entrapreneurs. I disagree with the current understanding and implementation of IP law which I believe to be virulently anticapitalist (and make no mistake, I'm no great fan of capitalism as it's implemented in the US or globally today) At it's best I think it's harmful to the American ideals of business, opportunity, as well as culture and thought in general.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

1:15 - The facts 5:40 - Copyright law 8:30 - The purpose & character of the use 9:40 - The nature of the copyrighted work 10:05 - The amount & substantiality of the portion used 10:45 - The effect of the use upon the potential market 12:10 - MxR's videos 13:15 - Parody v satire 17:30 - h3h3 production's case 18:20 - Equals three v Jukin media 20:00 - What MxR should do ? 21:25 - High stakes 22:35 - Extortion ? 27:25 - KZbin can't stop this ?

[@mysss29]

+

[@JamesSerapio]

"Stop admitting to shit" is the best advice anyone can get. Oh, and I did not skip an ad, because this channel deserves love.

[@BrullenLive]

Ads don’t do much really I remember someone saying it would take 1000 views for a dollar reason why a lot of people do use patreon

[@JamesSerapio]

@@BrullenLive it depends on the views and subscriber base on a channel. Every channel will have a different ad rate. If ads didn't matter, people wouldn't complain constantly about demonetisation or videos being claimed.

[@BrullenLive]

James Serapio if your a large channel yes but you’d still probably make more off other methods why big channels sell merch and everything base ad revenue isn’t big percentage ever

[@JamesSerapio]

@@BrullenLive people will monetise what they can potentially monetise while they have a market to do so. You might want to see this video at 35:10 just as an example of partner program ad revenue. Skipping ads doesn't do your favourite content creator any favours, and just because someone claims that they make little from their content's ad revenue it doesn't necessarily make it as they claim.

[@ChildofIcarus]

All those worldstar videos of people committing crimes, like false imprisonment, assault, battery. Like, stop recording and posting that stuff. It's really really stupid.

[@megaflamer]

this does really highlight the American "No Money = No Justice" system

[@MultiChrisjb]

More than just justice... You can get away with murder with enough money.

[@jameslewis2635]

@@MultiChrisjb I thought you only needed to be a Police officer.

[@parker469a]

@@jameslewis2635 Police officer? You mean enforcers of the upper classes interests? If you file a complaint they barely care. Someone with some money files a claim and they'll break their back to "fix" their problems.

[@hottheadliberty]

@@jameslewis2635 to be fair O.J. Simpson wasn't a cop and he got away with murder

[@kupoe]

@@hottheadliberty oj simpson was also loaded and had tons of money. had oj been oj nobody, dude woulda been locked up and the key tossed.

[@davidburlingame2421]

Great video. I appreciate how you maintain a balanced approach and presented both sides in this potential copyright case. Thanks for sharing.

[@woodrobin]

Jukin's extortion of KZbinrs is what would make me not watch any Jukin-licensed video. Here's the thing, though: they don't label any of the clips they own as owned by them. They go hunting for clips to buy that have already been released publicly, then go hunting for people who have used them (even possibly before Jukin bought the rights) and extort money from the KZbinrs by threatening to eliminate their means of livelihood by exploiting the KZbin copyright claim system. That's clearly a bad faith exploitation of copyright law in service of extortion. Similarly, you have a right to defend your property from trespass. Generally, you can build a fence and post a "No Trespass" sign. You cannot bury landmines on your property and let people wander onto your non-fenced property so they get blown up. By hiding their ownership and sending out demand letters, Jukin is in the landmine end of that spectrum of property defense.

[@PiXie232]

So are they legally allowed to do that then? Force a KZbinr to pay a fine for using a video clip that went viral before they had the rights to it?? That’s insane.. and should totally be considered extortion. So, if for instance the KZbinr got permission beforehand from the original person to use the video, (or if they used it in a fair use manner as well) and then that person went ahead and sold the rights to Jukin, would they still have a claim on it towards videos that were posted before they bought the rights to it? What a mess.. They sound like the pariahs of the media industry.

[@DageLV]

Well then simply apply fair use. Mrx is bluntly stealing the clips. While I watch minute movies, I often stop the video in first couple of minutes, then search where to watch that movie, watch it, then continue watching his video. With mxr. Do you go to the original clips to watch them? Or are they re-uploading those clips at full length.

[@rayhatesu]

@@DageLV as was put in the video, MxR fall under the poorest possible definitions of Fair Use usually in these types of videos, often using the "heart" of the clip if not the full clip. That said, the reading about Jukin not appropriately identifying the clips they own the rights for as their own immediately after acquisition and then hunting around for people who have used them is also a blatant case of Copyright Abuse. Neither party in this case was even remotely clean in the eyes of any court of law.

[@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming]

They are not peculiar in this activity. OpSec, Mark Monitor, Speak Easy, Friends, etc all do it. They have software they embed into their clips or videos they release onto the internet and wait for the 'share report' bots to report back with details of where the video, music, sports event or movie has been shared. They then hit that sharer with vast claims of money.

[@DageLV]

@@rayhatesu I wasn't notified of your reply. Yes junkin might very well be arseholes. But that doesn't matter. Legality does. And most, if not all reaction channels fail to comply with fair use. They're literally not even doing the bare minimum of doing review of the clip or anything. Shadiversity makes like an hour long video on a 2 minute movie fight scene, that's fair use. Xmr makes 10 second recording of 9.5 second video. If mrx wants to cry they better make sure they are legally right. About them buying popular clips and then complaining. Sure first I'd expect a notice to remove the video. If I borrowed a car from someone. You bought that car, and my response would be " I'll get it to you whenever I feel like" would you be fine with it? Of course no. It's yours you can demand that I return it asap

[@hollamonm]

Legal Eagle:'It would be pretty difficult to review a movie or provide commentary without using any clips of it.' Screen Rants:"Actually, super easy, barely an inconvenience!"

[@nick2099j]

Michelle Hollamon FoundFlix

[@2gla_2gla63]

*Ah, a man of culture as well*

[@samuellourenco1050]

It is possible to review a movie without providing clips. You are just removing the fairness of your commentary if you don't include any clips. You can just say that movie A is a loss of time. The end. And Hollywood shots itself in the foot.

[@cynderellylastname6060]

I think Cinema Sins has the best idea of just speeding up the video

[@anonymousxaela761]

@@cynderellylastname6060 Except Cinema Sins is trash

[@NukeMarine]

Winning advice: Shut up and lawyer up!

[@kargaroc386]

...if you're rich

[@androsp9105]

Of course a lawyer would like this comment

[@erikt3162]

kargaroc386 Contingency is a possibility.

[@lmoral222]

In other words, you done f*cked up.

[@robertkolb2288]

In a criminal case, if you can't afford a lawyer, one would be appointed to you. In a civil case, how would you obtain a lawyer if you can't afford one? It's great advice for someone who never thought, "I might need a lawyer for this", but most people who are given this advice know they need a lawyer and don't have a lawyer because Lawyers cost a shit ton of money.

[@thoddiver]

They settled out of court... gotta love our justice system - it costs to much to use it.

[@debunkthejunk1]

Update: MxR sues legal eagle for fair use in this video, Jukin sues both for "Inception Content"

[@frostshock13]

Obejection: As someone from the Midwest, I have put a horse back in the barn after it's got out.

[@jackass2344]

Objection: As someone from the inner city, I have given a car back after stealing it to avoid jail time.

[@thugasaurusrex6004]

Lmao this comment is absolute perfection

[@sea-envy3137]

@murb ash I think I have heard stand up comics telling stories about doing just that

[@oaf-77]

Really? You didn’t just build a new barn?

[@bloodlove93]

@@oaf-77 I just have Chinook choppers air drop a new one on top of wherever the horse is. After not finding the horses the first several times I realized I shouldn't have kept the floor attached...oops

[@wesriley3908]

"...and thousands of teenage legal experts." Okay, that earned a sub lol.

[@mittyxxx8791]

ikr

[@arturothecook]

They have the same expertise as our current president.

[@jwrosenbury]

60 year old, teenage, not a lawyer, legal expert checking in. I like watching MxR plays. Jukin media is a pile of [legal expert kicks in] flowers, puppies, and other nice things.

[@gordon861]

I am surprised that KZbin hasn't set up a system where a creator can flag a video as 'open to reactions' and the the reactor can record a video that would play sync'd with the original and picture in picture on the same screen. The video would play on the reaction channel but the owner would get any ad revenue from it. This wouldn't solve all the problems but it would give smaller channels a way to share stuff they like with their community without taking anything away from the owners. It would then be the choice of the owner to decide if just the ad revenue was enough.

[@grig8310]

The opening of this video sounded like something I recently heard about Corona: “the situation will either improve, stay the same or get worse”

[@meccamiles7816]

"Stop admitting sh*t!" Best legal advice.

[@nitoforever]

“Stop admitting sh*t” that had me dying

[@AceMoonshot]

Ditto...

[@vipulvaibhav7353]

Seconded

[@ianquinn6814]

As someone who has to upload videos to KZbin for a college course, the copyright course is a godsend

[@jakemartinez6894]

You can set videos so they are only accessible or even visible through a specific link.

[@ianquinn6814]

@@jakemartinez6894 we couldn't do that as the videos had to be public to be able to be viewed by our teachers and the examination board presiding over the course.

[@jakemartinez6894]

@@ianquinn6814 They don’t need to be, there’s a difference between a private video and an unlisted one. All you need is the link. I mean nothings bad would come of uploading anything for a college submission anyway, but out of an absolute abundance of caution you could have set it unlisted yes.

[@qanh96]

Watching this makes me wonder, how on earth is Daily Dose of Internet not going under yet?

[@Dwivil]

Daily dose if I remember correctly only uses clips he has direct permission to use, as quite commonly I'll see the same clips used much earlier than he does. So he uploads the clips with a large delay, meaning that somewhere along the line there is a delay. Which given that he has a large channel, it's likely he makes sure he has said permission.

[@manghariz2211]

If i remember correctly He has privated alot of old video when he isnt as big to avoid strikes because he didnt have the permission to show it. So he indeed have permission now and it would be a suicide to not have a permission.

[@teaja211]

@@Dwivil thats how it should be done tbh. you ask permission if you want to use someone elses content.

[@DustyHoney]

Daily Dose of Internet does everything 100% legally. He gets permission beforehand and puts the links to the original videos in the description.

[@preachingara2423]

"When you go to court you roll the dice" Yeah that gives you a sense of legal security..

[@rasaecnai]

you can be secured of your legal right in black and white situations. but many times it is not that, grey more like. the problem is that the other party wont just lay down and let you beat them, they gonna be screaming and thrashing as well. The thing for sure is that it will get expensive.

[@rodericktimmerman9779]

Get insurance fast!

[@RawkL0bster]

Lady Justice is crying right now.

[@bigj2105]

Alberto Franz who hurt you?

[@ashleewoods9205]

"It's time to think like a lawyer." *grabs indochino suit and wings.* Alrighty, I'm ready ✌🏾🙌🏾

[@Mario583a]

Birdman, get in here!!

[@NatePlaysVG]

God, I miss Harvey

[@IbeatHalo1onLegendary]

Fake lawyer! You don't even have a gavel

[@ashleewoods9205]

@@IbeatHalo1onLegendary you right. Adding a gavel to the collection.

[@Mario583a]

@@ashleewoods9205 Steal one from Mentok, the mind taker. Bwhoo-wee-oop

[@WoWaddictDon]

I'm blown away and laughing my proverbial rear end off at 12:01 like I understood any of that. Great video!

[@thekidfromcanada]

Being rich and using the legal system like it's designed (to exploit the poor) must be nice.

[@xanthiusdrake2775]

in a way, the system with the laws, court and lawyers is a scam.

[@jdmario1874]

@@xanthiusdrake2775 U dont need lawyer to defend ur self.

[@xanthiusdrake2775]

@@jdmario1874 it is true that you don't necessarily need a lawyer to defend yourself in court, but they do try too rope you in at any chance they can get.

[@hairymcnipples]

MxR make a bomb off of content they have stolen. They aren't the little guy in all this, that would be the actual creators whose work they steal and who feel that the only way they can be paid even a fraction of what their work is earning is by turning to a shitty troll like jukin.

[@barritoothy]

@@jdmario1874 you're kind of forced to get a lawyer. You can't defend yourself because law is really really hard. Only lawyers can deal with lawsuits

[@minicute2234]

Best line: "stop admitting to shiet!" 20:35

[@nitoforever]

Benny Liang I kno

[@jfb3361]

I thought so too.

[@Sonny_McMacsson]

Maybe they're crazy like a fox and all the controversy and attention is making them a killing anyway.

[@Faradeth1111]

@@Sonny_McMacsson well if theyre planing to make some money from it and proceed to pay the fine afterwards then that would be a valid strategy, otherwise theyre going to lose anything they make on court fees and then in my opinion proceed to lose the case and be liable for millions.

[@BenOlding]

I think them being completely open and honest got the public on their side much more than if they bent the trust and it came out. I feel like they just wanted to do what was right, rather than it be simply about them winning. They stated the situation they were in and were asking for help, if they made out that they had a watertight case, then people would have just said: "what are you worried about?"

[@GuttedWrenStudios]

My takeaway from this: Reaction videos are a legal hell that no one is actually prepared to deal with. Do not make them.

[@henkki1000]

Also, the act of reacting to something might be patented. And if you make original content and someone else makes a reaction video featuring your content and sells it to jukin, then you can get claimed or striked because of content matching algoritms. So basically don't post anything ever.

[@Wehra96]

most reaction channels are pretty blatantly not fair use. Equals three is one of the few that is actually Fair use.

[@Paxtez]

@@henkki1000 No, reaction videos are not patented. You can't patent a concept or plot. You might be thinking of the React channel trying to trademark "Reacts" type videos, but that was rejected.

[@TheOrganicartist]

this is why i am not a content creator even though my friends have encouraged me to do it. not only is it a legal headache to manage, the revenue stream is hyper-fragile.

[@filanfyretracker]

The legal system is honestly still not ready for the extremely fluid nature of the internet. in Ye Olde days of television a new concept for something is run through two floors of lawyers at the network HQ in NYC who look through decades of trademark and copyright case law to be totally sure usually. But the internet is open and free to anyone to make content, Copyright is still not setup to handle this (not so)new world and may not ever be.

[@asilbuns333]

Man, I just love your videos. Great stuff

[@PigsxArexAwesome]

With the advancement of the internet we need to reform some of these laws. When it comes down to it companies like Jukin who claim they have rights to particular videos with a database of thousands of viral videos they are able to go out and make claims like this on anyone who does these reaction videos with a vague description and win. Maybe not in the courtroom but on paper.

[@TNinja0]

One might not like what the eagle says, but it's worth remembering that he's only speaking what the law says by his interpretation, not his opinion.

[@Trusteft]

Isn't his interpretation his opinion?

[@Zeref8891]

@@Trusteft nope. He may disagree with something altogether but has to consider through the point of law.

[@JoshSweetvale]

@@Trusteft Ha! This. This is the nature of the psychosis which will tear down the Age of the West.

[@iKarrott]

@@Zeref8891 It's sill his professional opinion. Just not his personal one. Another lawyer could show up and say the law should be interpreted slightly differently based on their own research and experience. Therefore they have different professional opinions on how the law should be interpreted.

[@wyattberens3545]

He even says multiple times that he would like MxR to win this battle, but like he said, it could very well go either way

[@moonpigeon9]

twitter and you tubers band together to stop jukin. LeagleEagle: ummm..... Actually.

[@LegalEagle]

Everything is illegal.

[@Telthar]

@@LegalEagle Edit: This is explicitly a commentary on the sad state of affairs that copyright trolling is legal and quite profitable. It is nothing else besides that. I accept Mr. Eagle's position on legality is likely correct. Except being a predatory copyright troll who makes finding clips on their site damn near impossible (no tool to check a clip against their library for instance). Did you ask Jukin if they pay their clients on the $49 license fee or if they pay them out of the $1500 they are charging?

[@JustStupidNick]

@@Telthar how much Jukin pays their creators is a question of the business ethics and moral, not the actual law. LE considered that they may be copyright troll and expressed some doubts about their payout policies, what else do you want? He's a lawyer, not an economics/ethics/philosophy professor, and this channel is called LEGAL Eagle, not Ethical/Financial *birdname*.

[@Telthar]

@@JustStupidNick I realize that. I acknowledge that what Jukin is doing is most likely legal. However, I have concerns about copyright trolling being legal (patent trolling as well). Which is why I responded with "except being an aggressive..." it was a commentary on why copyright trolling is legal when everything else isn't.

[@Mario583a]

@@LegalEagle Unless you get away with it... ~ Joel.

[@GeoJesser]

This is incredibly informative. I don't know how I've missed it all this time -- I've been a subscriber for quite a while! The two points you made that I think really need to be shouted from the rooftops are that a KZbin channel (especially one that is monetized) is a business and you need to treat it like one; and, just saying, "So sue me" isn't necessarily a winning strategy, since legal defense is expensive. I really appreciate that you said that. I think a lot of folks have this idea that you just "get a lawyer" and then "something something" and you win, yay. No. You have to pay that lawyer. People go into deep, deep debt because they need a lawyer for something *cough*divorce*cough*.

[@ZERO-lz2qu]

Definitely learned a lot with this video. Thank you

[@TheJjcczz]

One of my biggest problems with Jukin is that they don’t watermark their content. A practice that stock companies like shutter stock and pond5 have been using since before Jukin was founded. If they really didn’t want people using their content without permission, then they would watermark their content like everyone else. That way people know not to use their content without buying a license first. With the way they have it set up now it’s extremely predatory, since anyone can stumble across the original upload and repost it somewhere else without knowing Jukin owns the clip. From there anyone can see the clip and react to or repost it somewhere else. Then all they have to do is wait for a repost or a reaction video to show up and bam you owe us money.

[@shocellist]

TheJjcczz I think that’s a poor argument because regardless of if Jukin owns the media or not, SOMEONE owns the media. Any independent creator has the same rights as Jukin, they just don’t know how to exercise their rights (just like how MXR didn’t know not to pay Jukin and get a lawyer first). Copyright on video clips exists with the creation of the clip - I don’t necessarily agree with Jukin’s tactics, but people shouldn’t be able to take advantage of creators’ naïveté for profit.

[@Bigdaddy93413]

shocellist There isn’t any way to know who owns it. As Jukin operates, you can’t track the clips down until it’s too late in most cases. Sure, you can argue that you should just not use those clips if you can’t locate its rights holder, and I’d agree with you. However, this doesn’t detract from the suggestion that Jukin is operating this way potentially on purpose to predate on people as a “Copyright Troll”. As long as they’re making it difficult to track them down, I think a Copyright Troll is exactly what they are. Unfortunately that doesn’t absolve MXR if he is infringing their copyright.

[@TheJjcczz]

shocellist In Jukin’s case they’re a major company going after people for using content that they had no idea was Jukin’s and had no way of knowing it was there’s to begin with. It’s completely different to using content from a lone individual. In regards to copyright if you’re someone who actually wants to enforce their rights then you need to be willing to learn. Since the U.S. requires all websites include some form of dmca takedown it’s not too difficult to get copyrighted works removed

[@YTDumpsterBaby]

A watermark isn't required by law for copyright. What Legal Eagle is saying is if you're going to use content you don't own. You have to be aware that somebody does own it. The same rules apply regardless of who else owns it. You don't so unless you're 110% positive you're using it in a true fair use way that transforms the content in the clip don't use it.

[@robertkolb2288]

I see watermarks all over pornhub for instance

[@OokamiKageGinGetsu]

"It's a feature, not a bug." Who wrote the fair use laws, Todd Howard?

[@drgabe2908]

"It just works"

[@Thouston]

No, his brother, Hodd Toward...

[@theinsaneshecklador6598]

Let's not give Bethesda any ideas.

[@luvdady]

Yeah its funny how bethesda's awful but capcom just remakes the same 3 game series for the past 20+ years no one bats an eye

[@rampage3337]

@@Thouston spliffin britt!

[@flamedphoenix84]

thank you for all the information about this issue.

[@pedrothevenard]

At the moment that defending yourself from something you find it to be abusive, might cost you everything you own and will own in your life, you are objectively denying the right for that person to defend themselve, and by definition practicing extortion, is it illegal extortion? Nope, but it is extortion nonetheless.

[@tacticallemon7518]

MxR said that when they asked for Jukin’s library so they could avoid their clips, Jukin refused Would that influence who’s in the right?

[@barsozuguler4744]

Im not a expert and this is just my opinion I think everybody should be declared their rights in writing even ultra small font texts. In the most cases a piece of paper will tell who is right. I think they have release what they have ownership. Copyrights are more complex than robbery crimes because owner must protect their belongings if they throw their stuff to robber than it is not even a crime also you will lost what you throw but in digital they basically have millions of copied of same stuff and they make them accidentally rob themself for purpose. KZbin should make more usefull copyright rights library

[@berkeleyblue4247]

@@barsozuguler4744 I'm not sure that's the case to be honest. We all know, especially as creators, that everything that was filmed, photographed, programmed or created in anyway by someone, is copyrighted. So you cannot just asume that something doesn't have a copyright, virtually everything has. It's you job as a creator to find whos holding the copyright, approaching them, ask them for permission and then paying for the license or give them ccredit if they choose to have a CC License. Just taking stuff because you do not know who it belongs to doesn't free you from justice. Think of it like this: I walk into a bar and theres a purse laying on the bar chair. I don't know who's it is or who left it there, I only know it isn't mine. Does that give me the right to just take it and use it for whatever I want?

[@WarrenGarabrandt]

Every clip that is on the Internet is copyrighted unless it is public domain. Anything that you want to use you need to obtain copyright rights to, or proof of public domain status. If you can't find the copyright owner, then don't use that clip. Simple as that. You don't need to see every piece of copyrighted material that somebody holds to make sure none of ones you want to use illegally are theirs so they don't catch you. Unless you are the copyright holder, you have to license ALL of the clips you use, regardless of who owns them.

[@alech9418]

@@gluttonousmachina2961 Not anything uploaded to the net, but anything uploaded to a public forum.

[@gonthyalavishalchandan1193]

@@gluttonousmachina2961 they don't upload movies to amazon Netflix KZbin to use there movies They upload it to watch the movie and the ads in between to monitize what they created YOU CAN'T SAY I PAID FOR SPOTIFY SO I CAN USE ALLAN WALKER'S SONG WHICH HE MAY HAVE SPENT FEW THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS

[@edelmiroschnackaragon9296]

I've been following the case, watching this lawyers and non lawyers videos and opinions and the one thing that jumps up everywhere is: "They may be in the perfect right of fair use but to prove it it will take thousands of dollars" now, I understand that this might sound childish or something but isn't that a big hole in the law? How can someone be in the right but not be able to fight it unless you are rich or a big company?

[@Adrian-qr6gk]

i think that's just how the system is at this point. and with the amount of work it'll take to correct it, it won't change. plus companies will just complain that they have to spend a lot of money cuz they have it, whereas a poorer person or group pay less cuz they have less. companies almost always win unless they do something truly bad

[@funkdahmental]

That’s the system.

[@erikt3162]

No, because everyone including entities have a right to fair trial.

[@Got2Bespoke]

I’m not a lawyer, but it’s my understanding that you don’t necessarily need a lawyer to sue someone or defend yourself in a lawsuit (we’ve all seen this in movies and possibly in the news). It may depend on the location (the state, etc.) as to whether you can proceed without a lawyer and when, however, not having legal advice is very likely to cause problems when navigating law and the court system, which is why we have lawyers and why people use them. This video and navigating copyright law is prime example of that. It also costs a lot to hire a lawyer because they’ve put a lot of time and effort into becoming one and clients pay for this time and expertise. They’re doing a job for you and that is why it can potentially cost a lot of money. If you can imagine the amount of hours it takes to get from the first form filled out to a jury verdict, it makes a lot of sense why it’s so costly.

[@bluehero-96]

Because corruption.

[@tristanho1533]

as an ex-content creator that has managed to get a couple of very very original viral videos under my belt, i'd like to chime in. I think copyright middlemen like Jukin are a very necessary part of the social media ecosystem. From our perspective, the real predators are the meme pagers and reactors that don't bother to give credits while freeloading off our work. We don't have money or the resources to claim what is rightfully ours, unlike what companies like Jukin does. In my whole career, I have gotten respectfully approached by copyright middlemen companies for the rights to my videos, and that was the only time I was ever offered money for my content, even though it was a few hundred dollars.

[@jasonbikeracer1]

"I have good news for MxR" I was expecting him to say "I know where to get quality suits"

[@ravenanimations3176]

“A feature and not a bug though” Bethesda is the law

[@GeneralNuisance00]

Todd Howard wants to know your location

[@diersteinjulien6773]

That saying is way older than Bethesda, funny that they're the first we think of when hearing that

[@twism11]

DIERSTEIN Julien well, they certainly put in the work necessary to appropriate that idiom.

[@_Rinalya]

The last time Jukin went to court they were unable to produce the majority of their copyright licensing to prove that they even had the right to file the claims. They were not prepared. I don't think they've changed which is why they took down all of their social media.

[@marhawkman303]

@Grim keeper I personally suspect that they don't actually "own" some of what they claim. The inherent issue with "buying" viral videos is that the owners have in many cases functionally abandoned ownership. Thus some would be considered public domain. You can't really buy something that's public domain.

[@tiagodarkpeasant]

@@marhawkman303 it is probabl like this, they say you stole theyir video you pay: easy money, repeat until they ask questions you dont pay, they say they will sue you, you ask what video you stole, they wont tell because they don't actually own the video, then you say you will go to court, they bail just imagine if they actually bought random videos expecting people to pay them, do you think it would give anyprofit without the extortions ? for every viral videos there are thousands of videos that go unseen, they count on the scare tatics people going to court for every violation would also not be profitable

[@marhawkman303]

@@tiagodarkpeasant Well Jukin seemingly hasn't actually been bluffing about the courts. Then again, one of their cases got tossed for being unprovable, sooo… yeah.

[@areyoutheregod]

Every time I pause, his face reminds me of Jim Carrey

[@ICaligvla]

@Grim keeper Idk... "My cousin Vinny" was pretty competant...

[@treflosho]

I've been watching "mxr play" videos along with "legal eagle" videos this month. So in a way, this is the collaborative video I never expected to see.

[@missgrreen9398]

I would caution against taking ANY advice from The Quartering lmao.

[@johnnymolyneaux2645]

Update: looks like there was a settlement

[@Driaan]

Johnny Molyneaux where can I find this info?

[@lordlemmingman]

@@Driaan The latest video that MxR plays posted

[@Sinvx]

I bet the contents of that settlement are probably a long the lines of, "Get the internet to leave us alone, and we will never bother you again".

[@johnnymolyneaux2645]

@@Driaan kzbin.info/www/bejne/oajcY4WJhNyNd7s

[@supremeverdict359]

Nah.. Scamers need to hack :3

[@T33Dajaku]

I just had a Liar Liar flash back when he said "Stop Admitting $%*t". Oh man this is one of the many reasons I love this channel!

[@fonze5664]

I love how Devin's entire babyface-to-heel character arc can be summarized by his choice between the words "and" and "or" 😂😂

[@ericawillis.]

I searched their channel and wow. How are they monitized lmao. Gotta give them credit for boldness

[@therealAkito]

Jukin: we want 6k Legal Eagle: actually you can get 600k+ Jukin: *STONKS*

[@ZyroShadowPony]

@Urazz they got most of the content from Reddit so it's fair to say it was unintentional

[@alexxz123]

ZOINKSS

[@TrainHardnett]

they are not even entitled to the 6k because MxR is not obliged to pay it. You are not paying for something you didn't sing in this case some arbitrary fee for breaking a licensing contract with Juken Medea, which MxR never agreed to or signed. You are not getting shit either when you ask for 6k or in failing to pay you will take away all of the income of said person. I have no idea why on earth they would do that when they can easily get sued for extortion. In the first case 1 party pays the other a fee determined by the court in the other the losing party goes to prison for a federal crime and pays a fine.

[@XFry333X]

At most, 600K. If they lawyer up and play it smart, at worst, they'll negotiate that number way down.

[@filanfyretracker]

600k per copyright law, that said most of these channels probably do not have the cash so the company would never see a red cent. Especially if the people are smart and incorporated their channel as an LLC to protect personal assets.

[@walteracevedo5105]

Harvey Dent: "My fees are very forgivable." Also Harvey Dent: "STOP ADMITTING TO SH&T!"

[@maddyv5948]

"Can we trust him?"

[@Xershade]

Rule #1 of ANYTHING legal. "SHUT UP!" A lot easier for him to clean up your mess if you haven't admitted it's your mess.

[@Ishidal]

I've bursted with laughter at this point. That was top notch reaction ^^

[@nerd_nato564]

@@Xershade What to do if you're arrested: Say "I want my lawyer" and shut the hell up. Ever wondered why officers say "anything you say can and will be used against you"? Because it's true.

[@Steve-xo5pq]

I personally feel, after watching your video that MxR would have a hard time with the fair use defense because their commentary was so minimum.

[@TuesdaysArt]

I agree. The defense of them "simulating watching videos with friends" defense is flimsy. That opens the floodgates for people to upload the entirety of Bee Movie and make a comment every ten minutes.

[@yololoyo7379]

Meanwhile on Twitch there's people literally live streaming movies and tv shows as "reaction" haha

[@hairymcnipples]

Yeah, much as I hate copyright trolls, in this case mxr are specifically the reason they exist - because small creators can't afford to do anything about people taking and profiting from their content without cutting them in or even crediting them, so they get what they can by selling to scum like jukin.

[@davidpetersen1]

Love your channel!! As a Canadian I would be interested to hear your take on some of the realities of our laws. And also how copyright laws cross international borders. Thanks for your content. :)

[@vaevictis6990]

I know we have different laws. Like in Canada Supreme Court ruled that downloading is not a violation of copyright, yet Canadians get letter from US demanding money. I've heard Canadian lawyers saying dont pay, its not illegal here. Its illegal to upload

[@VivaFrei]

One point of disagreement, as a relates to the potential extortion: under Canadian law (and I suspect it’s the same under American law), coupling a *demand* (for payment or other) with the *threat* of filing of a *criminal or statutory complaint* is recognized as extortion. So where I think Jukin walks the line is saying “pay us the money” (demand), or we file the DMCA takedown notice (threat of statutory complaint). The only reason why it may be fair game is because of the nexus between the basis of the demand and the statutory complaint itself. But it’s getting close, and not a line worth walking (in my humble opinion). Great video.

[@goldengamer2045]

I do believe that US law has a similar law but I am not sure if that is federal or state base

[@Uncommoner]

Would the matter of good faith and intent need to be considered? Jukin seems to honestly believe they have a claim and are seeking restitution outside the potentially punishing confines of the courts. If this were a baseless demand for payment then I agree this would probably fall under criminal extortion. This being their second bite at the apple does argue for bad faith however. So many things to consider, thank gods I've never been called to jury duty.

[@VivaFrei]

Uncommoner one can have a genuine good faith believe that somebody owes them money. But if they couple that otherwise lawful / good faith belief into a demand with an unlawful threat, that’s when it crosses the line into potential extortion.

[@VivaFrei]

Tyler Durden (First of all, I love your name - fight club is top 10 movies ever). I think Jukin does have a claim for some of the use. Reaction channels, by their nature, walk a very fine line that they sometimes cross…

[@jackleface2903]

8th amendment for usa

[@tyeia]

The problem with Jukin Media is that you can't tell if a video is their's. They don't watermark, their videos aren't well documented. If anything, it appears they are trying to bait KZbinrs into playing their videos to try and get as many of these copyright strike threats as possible.

[@miscsloan8834]

its like you should seek permission from owners of content that isn't yours and if you can't just not use their material in the first place. or something....

[@ValkynShade]

@@miscsloan8834 which is not how the Internet works

[@wauthethird]

Misc Sloan awareness for that sort of thing is not widespread

[@chrisjackson1215]

@WAUthird Ignorance if the law us no excuse. It hever has been.

[@Honneylemz]

The thing is that the videos they react to are the compilation kinds. Even if they ask for permission from the uploader, chances are they are not even from them and may not know who the specific clips came from.

[@climbon3157]

How do you get served a legal document and not immediately see an attorney?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

[@chiip90]

The skeevey thing about it was the demand for a repeat payment. They charged them for £2000, which they probably set at that amount because they thought they would pay it without too much thought. They then had them on the hook for the rest.

[@shiinaai2978]

So based on the volcano exploding example, the reactions of: 1) "It's cool" is barely fair use 2) "This is totally fake. Exploding volcanoes don't sound like fart. The shape of the volcano is wrong too." would be fair use?

[@johnlime1469]

Probably would. The claims made by the commentator is false, but they are adding new perspective onto the sample.

[@stryletz]

Maybe.

[@XFry333X]

I believe so. Because the 1st comment does nothing to transform the original work. It's just a comment added to the entirety of the volcano video. It's still the same video of that volcano and anyone viewing it would receive the same amount of entertainment value from it. In the second example, it's no longer a video of a volcano. It's a video of someone disproving that the volcano is real, assuming said example offers enough depth in it's critique. A video disproving the existence of the volcano has transformed the original volcano video, creating its own unique value.

[@Rovy83]

What I want to know is, are all their reaction videos that devoid of content? And if so, how the hell do they have any followers?

[@litchie5836]

@@Rovy83 From what I can tell, its not that their videos are devoid of content, its that the content of their video has the same purpose as that of the original video. The original video had the purpose of "entertainment" and the react video has the same purpose, "entertainment." If it had a different purpose from the original, such a criticism or education, they would be OK.

[@robertgirtakovskis1670]

Objection: this isn’t immersive enough, as I don’t own a suit quite like yours, Mr.LegalEagle

[@simonkimberly6956]

Robert Girtakovskis Indochino wants to know your location

[@guishenaskishe1908]

We need an Indochino suit mod in Skyrim now

[@simonkimberly6956]

Guishe Naskishe would download. (Fallout 4 too?) go to different discord servers. Theres lots of people who would make this mod.

[@1good100]

Prepare for indochino ad

[@BioLegacy141]

Factor number 3 is also a major point for clip shows. The Wilhem scream, for instance, while originally part of a copyrighted work, was considered to short to be considered protected by the copyright, and therefore not protected. The same idea protects clips shows

[@solarfirez3751]

the thing that makes me sad is that they already paid 2k and now are being charged another 6k, I feel like the company shouldn't have the right to double-dip on someone like that. Because then what if their intention WAS to double dip, get income and then demand more for examples they INTENTIONALLY missed or didn't make demand on

[@Braxis_iv]

Waiting for Junkin Media to Copyright Leagle Eagle now

[@yesac100]

We all saw the cat, give it time.

[@Mario583a]

@@devinj.9273 Jukin Media: I can't copyright your ass without coming closer.

[@Rodrigo-ei4ht]

Is that a motherf****** Jojo reference?! 😂😂 Ah memes

[@TheJaredtheJaredlong]

I wonder if Legal Eagle paid the $49 just to be safe.

[@JamesSerapio]

Use of the video was to illustrate potential infringement by MxR and not for the intent of the original video.

[@ninjaslash52_98]

You forgot the part where they asked Jukin to clarify which clips were copyrighted but they refused they also did purchase a license but got a claim for the clip they bought the license to Some more info: Jukin has a reputation for filing claims giving the victim a warning along the lines of “you have 6 videos of ours please pay for a license or remove them within _days” if you ask for them to point to the videos they’ll ignore you and there are no watermarks on their videos they try to compare themselves to shutter stock but shutter stock has a big ass watermark Also some news they settled out of court not a huge surprise mxr seems happy and a little scared of their fans for starting a war with Jukin and they said Jukin was happy too

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Ninjaslash52 _ i think they are a little intimidated by the outpouring of support, and the reports of making threats on their behalf probably disnt help much either. You already mentioned the problem i have where legal eagle conveniently stepped around, where jukin seems to intentionally keep their claims vague, denying them access to the information they need to comply.

[@ceratedsign4825]

@@nunyabisnass1141 That's the point, it's a hustle for JunkiesMedia, it's not about protecting their video content, it's about creating traps; watching reaction videos, finding the owners of the popular clips, purchasing the rights and then suing the people who previously watched before the ownership transfer. If they disclose the info they need to comply, they'll just take the clips out or the videos down and that brings them no 🧀It's ALL about that 🧀🧀🧀

[@mattjohnson8585]

Word that as an OBJECTION! so he can reply to it. Otherwise there's no reason to think that Junkin's failure to provide specifics is in any way a valid legal argument.

[@MrHendrikje]

They can't use water marks because it's content uploaded to reddit for the most parts. They own the rights to the clip, not the account it self. They can't watermark it even if they wanted to. You see, If reddit removes that video, Jukin has paid rights for a video they likely can't acces it anymore, unless they are willing to spent hours to find it reshared on facebook, reddit, Instagram or any other social media. I just find it baffeling this stuff is legal to be gin with. Who monetizes meme's in this manner?

[@avery465]

He addressed the part about buying the license AFTER the video was posted. Which is to late

[@animemaster8751]

we needd you again my boi

[@rocknriffify]

You know the system is dumb when the difference between providing legal advice as a lawyer and not is simply stating “this is not legal advice” and then stating what is clearly legal advice of some kind

[@Ostentatiousnessness]

“There are absolutely no absolutes” That’s... a statement

[@applecore8978]

The subject of the claim is not the subject of the sentence. Logic 101.

[@Ostentatiousnessness]

Apple Core I shall pretend I understand that.

[@theautisticguitarist7560]

Only a Lawyer deals in absolutes.

[@applecore8978]

@@Ostentatiousnessness Lol think of it as if he said this: "There are absolutely no absolutes" ... in the specific context of administering legal advice. Nothing in law is certain. He's not saying there are no such things as facts in reality. Cheers.

[@Ostentatiousnessness]

TheAutisticGuitarist Yes!

[@jeremytrees7266]

"And I will see you in court." Hell, I hope not.

[@ShiraLiao]

Better hope you'll be part of the jury at least.

[@rodericktimmerman9779]

If I see him in court, I'll know my doom is nigh (unless he's on my side at which point I may have a chance).

[@Elessar0wind]

@annuna That's his sign off phrase, he always says it, whether it's good... well, it's good for him!

[@zacharyshelton4087]

The difficult part on MxR's end is knowing which videos are and agents copyright protected. It's honestly VERY difficult to tell who owns which videos in a lot of cases. They certainly messed up in terms paying the first time and talking about it online as kuch as they did, but I can still sympathize with them

[@drench1580]

All videos are copyright protected

[@isovideo7497]

@@drench1580 Unless the copyright expired and they are in the Public Domain. This was common prior to 1976 in the US, when registration was required, and copyrights were often never registered, or not renewed. Certainly assuming all newer stuff is copyright is safer.

[@TheScottishDeity]

I work in media law, I can say that Jukin do provide a legitimate and useful service. They are also very diligent at gathering up viral videos, and enforcing their exclusive licence rights.

[@dianeridley9804]

WINNER: EVERY ATTORNEY, billable hours

[@messyjetski2549]

When he says $6000 can ruin a small family, but is relatively little compared to the potential outcomes of copyright suites and legal fees, that shit hits home. There should be easier access to the legal system for common people.

[@TurtleSauceGaming]

The world runs on billable hours.

[@acat6145]

@@messyjetski2549 well get rate lawyers they aren’t payed by hourly but whether a percentage of the final settlement of the case

[@jaywalkin8205]

Mxr plays also stated they will remove ANY copyright content but, jukin will not release the titles of the clips. I would consider that purposeful extortion.

[@avery465]

I don't think really matters at this point. He just said once the infringement happens you can't go back. So whether or not they are willing to take it down doesn't matter.

[@jaywalkin8205]

Well it should especially if jukin isnt watermarking content.

[@JCGver]

@@jaywalkin8205 Why should they? Like our justice avian said it is on MxR to gain permission to use copyrighted material (if it's not fair use), and by default any work is copyrighted. So unless it expressly stated that the material is free to use for commercial purposes you might be carefull which videos you reupload with you saying "that's cool" at the end of it.

[@jaywalkin8205]

@@JCGver still dosent justify the fact that mxr will comply with the jukin team but jukin will not do the same. The uploads were intended but copyright videos were not, they get all of there content off of reddit. Like mxr said they are targeting him because he caved in and paid them before hand. Jukin media retracts their statements and try's to excuse why this happened saying it was unintentional and a "troll" account is the reason for the whole thing.. sounds fishy to me

[@Puntersnatch]

@@jaywalkin8205 monetizing reddit threads does not free you from copyright law. The people who share the video on reddit arent monetizing it so they dont chase them but if your entire channel is built around barely reacting to reddit clips youre violating copyright law. 50 bucks doesnt seem much to pay for content that is feeding their families. Now they tried to negotiate through youtube so their lawyers have to get involved and thats not cheap. Had they talked about it offline it may have gone different but in the end there is no such thing as free content unless youre making it. If your business is built around stealing viral videos you should pay the owners.

[@mikedrakekrampus9410]

I'd love to see more on this topic. How is it handled when a clip is used on a news program? If someone film for example a car being washed away in a flood and then a news broadcasts uses the footage that they took off social media are they required to pay?

[@hairymcnipples]

They are absolutely required to get rights to the video, yes. And why shouldn't that be the case?

[@DerKiesch]

So even the legal eagle avoids risking a copyright strike at any cost even though he is probably far in fair use territory (since you can't really discuss if it's fair use and why without showing the clip). And this here is clearly very transformative ^^

[@msfortuknit]

Poor MXR, just leave him and his naughty Skryim mods alone.

[@sateda]

Naughty naughty you've been caughty... 💑💏👪

[@msfortuknit]

@@michaelrichardson8475 Thank the goddess!

[@lordblazer]

@@msfortuknit lol same individual is going to lose money.

[@adamgray1753]

Yeah, @@michaelrichardson8475. MxR Mods is one of the best Skyrim/Fallout 4 KZbin channels... for reasons. lol

[@forgotten7073]

um this is there reacting channel not the mod channel

[@E1m0ren]

How to know if the person facing potential legal complications is intelligent: They are not speaking.

[@garymcmillan9493]

The problem is losing in the court of public opinion can be just as if it more damaging than the legal settlements will be

[@o0alessandro0o]

@@garymcmillan9493 Not for juketroll. Theu can always rebrand if things go sour, and in the mean time they are doing what they promised content creators: they look for thosr who are taking their content for free and getting money out of them. And they would have probably settled for far less and potentially thrown in a license agreement for the future had MxR lawyered up.

[@o0alessandro0o]

This, this, so very much this. AKA "stop admitting to shit!"

[@garymcmillan9493]

@@o0alessandro0o o0alessandro0o In this specific example you are probably right. I was thinking of what you said as a blanket statement. For example if Vic magnogna (probably misspelled) had taken your advice and not said anything he would be out of the job and forgotten, as it stands he is still making money and has public support to fight the legal battle because he fought the battle for public opinion

[@CheatOnlyDeath]

Awesome coverage of the case. Maybe the best non-legal advice to follow. “Little guys” need and deserve more help (from KZbin imo).