Craziest rubik's cube reactions video (Any tips?)

[CubingHighlights]

Hello! I was just wondering if anybody could give me any tips on the following video and maybe even some other videos on my channel too .
The video is

Thanks!

 

[FastCubeMaster]

Don't put in the entire solves of all these people, it's boring and it's not what they're here to see. Honestly, imagine if you were watching this video, would you watch Kevin Hay's 1:40 6x6 former WR from the beginning? (Consequently makes the video too long)

 

[CubingHighlights]

Don't put in the entire solves of all these people, it's boring and it's not what they're here to see. Honestly, imagine if you were watching this video, would you watch Kevin Hay's 1:40 6x6 former WR from the beginning? (Consequently makes the video too long)

Thanks for the feedback! I will make sure to keep that in mind for future videos.

 

[WACWCA]

I didn't watch it yet but If your going to make compilations, make sure all featured channels you asked first and that you don't use the whole solves, what happens often is that compliations like top ten 3x3 singles will take views from the individual channels if they show the entire solve

 

[CubingHighlights]

I didn't watch it yet but If your going to make compilations, make sure all featured channels you asked first and that you don't use the whole solves, what happens often is that compliations like top ten 3x3 singles will take views from the individual channels if they show the entire solve

Ah yes, I usually try to credit the original channel/video that had the original footage but I'm sort of new to making these kinds of videos so I'll try something different next time. Thanks.

 

[xyzzy]

take views from the individual channels

This is… a weird complaint to make? If it's taking views away, that means that it's providing more value than the original video, which is clearly a good thing.

The actual issue here should be one of copyright violation. (This is ironic, because I don't care about copyright for selfish+political reasons and yet I'm going to explain it to other people who don't care either.) All works are automatically protected by copyright, thanks to the Berne Convention—making and distributing (e.g. by uploading on YouTube) a derivative work is prohibited unless what you're doing falls under "fair use" (non-US countries use different names for essentially the same idea), or if the copyright owner has given permission (either by asking them directly for permission, or if they have provided a free licence).

"Fair use" is an intentionally vaguely defined term in US law so that big corporations can choose to sue you whenever they feel like, but essentially what it means is:

• Is it non-commercial? (Ads would count as commercial usage, for example.)
• Does it have a substantially different purpose from the original?
• Does it use a minimal portion of the original?
• Would it not have a significant negative effect on the exploitation of the original?

More "yes" answers to the above questions means it's more likely to count as "fair use". In this case, including full solve videos would indicate "no" for at least the third and fourth questions above.

 

[Ronxu]

If it's taking views away, that means that it's providing more value than the original video

Incorrect. It provides as much value as the original video because it includes the full solve. There's no reason for the viewer to watch the original videos after seeing this video.

 

[I_<3_SCS]

Cookie cutter compilation

 

[xyzzy]

Incorrect. It provides as much value as the original video because it includes the full solve. There's no reason for the viewer to watch the original videos after seeing this video.

All else equal, why would someone prefer to watch a reupload instead of the original? Convenience is the only reason I can think of, and in that sense the convenience would be the added value. I don't personally think that this is real value, and from your post I assume that you don't consider it real value either, but other people might, and that's what matters.

 

[Ronxu]

All else equal, why would someone prefer to watch a reupload instead of the original? Convenience is the only reason I can think of, and in that sense the convenience would be the added value. I don't personally think that this is real value, and from your post I assume that you don't consider it real value either, but other people might, and that's what matters.

Because they happen to find the compilation earlier than the original video.

 

[FastCubeMaster]

Because they happen to find the compilation earlier than the original video.

Which with the common cubing videos we see going around, it fortunately barely ever happens

 

[WACWCA]

This is… a weird complaint to make? If it's taking views away, that means that it's providing more value than the original video, which is clearly a good thing.

The actual issue here should be one of copyright violation. (This is ironic, because I don't care about copyright for selfish+political reasons and yet I'm going to explain it to other people who don't care either.) All works are automatically protected by copyright, thanks to the Berne Convention—making and distributing (e.g. by uploading on YouTube) a derivative work is prohibited unless what you're doing falls under "fair use" (non-US countries use different names for essentially the same idea), or if the copyright owner has given permission (either by asking them directly for permission, or if they have provided a free licence).

"Fair use" is an intentionally vaguely defined term in US law so that big corporations can choose to sue you whenever they feel like, but essentially what it means is:

• Is it non-commercial? (Ads would count as commercial usage, for example.)
• Does it have a substantially different purpose from the original?
• Does it use a minimal portion of the original?
• Would it not have a significant negative effect on the exploitation of the original?

More "yes" answers to the above questions means it's more likely to count as "fair use". In this case, including full solve videos would indicate "no" for at least the third and fourth questions above.

The only "value" provided by popular compliations is there convenience of having all the solves in one video, but look at top ten Rubik's cube solvers or something like that for example, they can get over a million views, while number almost every person on the list may only have 50k with the exception of WRs/ former WRs, because they have no reason to watch the video when they have already seen the whole solve. It's no more valuable then posting ten links or making a playlist.

 

[xyzzy]

It's no more valuable then posting ten links or making a playlist.

Which, judging by the huge discrepancy in view counts, is actually valuable to all the millions of people who watch the compilations. I reiterate: it might not be valuable to us, but if the compilation videos get so much more views than the originals, you kind of have to admit that our opinion might not be the majority opinion.

A cubing-unrelated anecdote: [redacted]

Keep in mind that the above anecdote was about essentially exact copies of the original (modulo generation loss), whereas the video of this thread is a compilation. I re-reiterate: just because we don't think compilations have value doesn't mean that they have zero value to everyone. Also, to reiterate a separate point (namely, the one that covered more than just two lines in my first post), this is very likely copyright infringement to begin with, regardless of whether it provides any value.