Comments by "Samuel Lourenço" (@samuellourenco1050) on "YouTuber Extortion? MxR Plays v. Jukin - Real Law Review // LegalEagle" video.

  1. 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.
    15
  2. It is still easy for MxR: remove any videos that have any hint of foreign material, belonging to Jukin or not. I did this on my old channel. I used to use music to test my amplifiers, thinking it was fair use. Already removed those videos, preemptively. Mind that they will not loose any more revenue, since the revenue tends to decrease with time, once the novelty passes. Having said that, I don't think Jukin is right, since they are now threatening to strike MxR since they resolved to delete the claimed videos. Essentially MxR resolved the copyright issue, but Juken still wants to do harm. At the end of the day, Jukin is a copyright troll.
    4
  3. Jukin Media is a copyright troll. If you don't bend to their will, they will strike your account. MxR does well by not wanting to use clips from Jukin. Also, are the clips really from Jukin? I doubt it.
    1
  4. It is a feature that can invalidate the whole concept of "fair use" to me. It is very subjective.
    1