Are reaction channels a bad thing?

Some Networks and copyright holders are able to claim stolen videos and monetize/block them.
Copyright holders of songs do this to most YouTube videos so it's also an option for other people.
 
Since I review cartoons I unfortunately have had to see a lot of reaction channels pop up in my recommendations which do nothing but put the shows I review into one corner of the screen and have their face in the other corner.

Yes it's bad, lazy, and constitutes theft since it doesn't fall under fair use. Most of the views come from people who are ignorant of better ways to watch shows through shady means.

And usually given enough time these channels are shut down (typically after they get huge). So at least there's that; I have the relief of knowing if you try to scam the system long enough, eventually your channel will be destroyed. I've seen YT put the hammer down on 3 channels so far (strangely these people get to keep having YT channels, which is annoying because YT is supposed to ban your entire ability to do that).

The horrid thing though is that for every reaction channel to die dozens crawl in to fill their place. Reaction channels are like ****ing cockroaches - I'm not gonna sugar coat that statement. And they know they can persist because they seem to never get any repercussions beyond losing their channel. I'm sure many of them are even happy to make a buttload of money from blatant theft and come out of it smelling like daisies.

Short answer: Yes reaction channels in the manner they exist today are bad. More involved commentaries can be OK, but they are far more rare.
 
Last edited:
it depends..if someone just has the natural charisma and can make people laugh easily than why not take advantage of that? we all would do that if we could :)
 
Strawken
I think it's very important to differentiate between them using quality of videos because a main problem is that youtubers like jinx are not adding anything to the original video. It's too easy they record and they post. That's it basically re uploading with there face in the middle and an occasional head nod, but if they ad things like funny edits, skits and or parodies I think then it would be unfair to put them in the same categorie as jinx. The thing that reactors should do if they can't be bothered trying to make good YouTube videos is ask there subs to make videos for them to react to and help the channel that made the video gain subs in the process. Jinx already does this but he should do that and only that if he wants to react. Sorry about the rant but I have had several unsuccessful yt channels and I really tried to make them as good as possible I put so much time in and got nothing in return and then these guys come in and get 1 mil I'm like 8 months! I think that's bs
 
I'm kind of iffy, it is fair use, but I hate it whenever a channel just plays the video with their facecam in a corner. It's not that interesting, and they're getting all of the views for someone else's hard work. I'm okay whenever they make it more interesting and different so that it is not so similar to the actual video, such as some effects, or whatever.:happy::happy: I hate it especially when someone monetizes their video where they play the video with only their facecam in the corner.:rage::rage: I hope this helps! :biggrin::biggrin:
 
Most reaction videos are staged and its worse when they show a video that is not even their content, no wonder they are being taken down.
 
Ninja said:
I honestly can't stand them. They're pretty much all talent-less hacks that are stealing other peoples content. I'll make an exception to H3H3 because they actually add skits and edits among other things to actually make the video interesting and funny, where the focus isn't even on the video they're reacting to. But in the case of people like Jinx: Youtube would be better off without them.
Click to expand...

Legally speaking Reaction videos are fair use. so it wouldn't constitute stealing.[DOUBLEPOST=1453434264,1453434205][/DOUBLEPOST]
BrinosaurasGaming said:
I meant "it is not fair use."
Click to expand...

It is fair use. If they are commenting on the original material that meets fair use. copyright . gov states this.
 
That's like saying if I put "LOL" flashing across the screen on somebody else's video it constitutes transformative. Having some comments on somebody else's ENTIRE product does not constitute fair use.

Most reaction videos also would not even qualify as commentaries.
Actually commentary videos are largely-in-part fair use, though if they ever actually had to defend themselves in court questions would be raised as to how much of the original thing they used and how much it may take away from the original product.

But putting your head in the corner and saying 100 total words every 5 to 10 minutes? That is not fair use by any stretch of the imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top