Thanks for that. A very entertaining watch.

You really need to put this on an RSS feed! I wish there was a way you could get paid for views for this stuff. I will be sending people this link when they ask "why are you so mad about that terminal scene in that movie?!?!"

The parent commentator is the former CTO of Cloudflare, I don't think he's worried about monetizing his passion project :)

Sure it sucks that you got takedown notices. Ideally it would have been revenue share. Your critique is mostly interesting because it's using famous IP. Critique something no one cares about to see how much your additions are adding vs the pull of the original content itself.

Commentary and criticism are by law protected as fair use. Why would revenue share be done "ideally"? News reporting is also covered under fair use, do you expect news organizations to pay for reporting on movies?

Ideally fair use would be defended, it is the law of the land, and when a takedown notice was emitted maliciously, with known bad faith, the actor that did that would have to pay for the amount of time that the legal content was down.

I don't think those laws will last. They were written in the 70s before youtube. Ideally the law would allow the critique but recongize it's the IP drawing in the users, and sharing some of the revenue.

I don't know if fair use laws will last, but I hope they do, and definitely disagree that sharing revenue would somehow be ideal.

I've read criticism of media I've never even heard of (and learned some insightful things), so clearly the original IP isn't always the pull, and even if it was I don't understand how talking about something suddenly means I need to pay the person who owns the intellectual property of the thing I'm talking about. I think it would make criticism less likely and put us in an even worse situation than today, when large corporations often use the DMCA to take down clearly fair-use criticism. Just a further stifling of speech.

Also, fair use has been around since the eighteenth century, even if in the US the US 1976 Copyright Act made fair use statutory.

Fair use was common law with judicial precedents for a couple hundred years before it became a statutory law in 1976.

Why would fair use law go away? Fair use for the purpose of critique is maybe the best & most favored defense of fair use by the Copyright Office, and ties together necessary copyright exceptions for supporting Free Speech and journalism, among other good reasons. Things also seem to be moving in the opposite direction with recent precedent deeming some AI uses transformative fair use. YouTube has done more that it’s fair share of playing fast and loose with copyrights for a profit, but YouTube, and more broadly Google, depends on fair use for massive portions of their business. I don’t see fair use going anywhere anytime soon.

I never said you shouldn't be able to use it, I only said you should have to share revenue if you use someone else's work. "fair use" and critique would still be a thing.

I believe the parent comment was saying that the YT poster should have gotten some revenue share. Since the work they put in would in theory be enhancing the original work. Obviously these sort of things are created and consumed primarily by “super fans” who probably buy director cuts etc etc .

At least that’s how I read the comment and I agree.

Would you be interested in collaborating on a selfhosted CMS to aid in publishing a video series on one’s own site with syndication to rss and other platforms like youtube? I have been close to scratching this itch for most of a year.

That's not a project that excites me but good luck with it.

You should post on YouTube but blank out all the falsely strikable content and replace it with a pointer to your website. YouTube is necessary for discoverability.

> YouTube is necessary for discoverability.

It will remain necessary only as long as people do this.

Feel free to be as smug as you went while your brand fades to irrelevance. I'm telling you what will happen, not what should happen.

I would encourage you to read both of these comments in succession with nothing else between them.

The first two words of the first comment are “You should” then your follow up grammatically evaluates to “I’m not telling you what should happen”.

All they did is point out that suggesting people should post to YouTube exacerbates the network effects you allude to.

"You should" begins what actions I suggest you do in order to mitigate the outside forces that are happening whether you like them or not. The outside world is certain. Your response is something you can influence.

The world sucks. You get to choose your response and if you choose wrong your business gets Darwinned. I've told you what actions I think will avoid your business getting Darwinned, but your response has been denial. Your response was essentially: "wow, fuck you for telling me the world sucks. Here's a non sequitur to try and make you feel bad."

This reads as utter nonsense disconnected from the flow of conversation. I suggest you turn down the temperature on your Heretic model.

I see you have taken the latter option: feel smug, ignore the real world, and fade your brand into irrelevance. Oh well, plenty more brands out there.

Am I a mirror?

Go live in the woods and live off the land.

You're lucky if that's right. In Sweden there's no fair use of imagery at all. "Citaträtten" (the right to quote) only covers words.

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citatr%C3%A4tt

As a hardened criminal then, I should probably avoid visiting Sweden

IANAL, but that's not quite true right? As per your own citation, återgivningsrätten gives the right to use any piece of art (not in digital form) in conjunction with a piece of critical text.