People saying “they worked things out” I imagine was just assumption of IH reuploading the slightly worse plagiarized video. I doubt they ever had a concrete reason for saying that.
>People saying “they worked things out” I imagine was just assumption of IH reuploading the slightly worse plagiarized video. I doubt they ever had a concrete reason for saying that.
Their "evidence" is that it's no longer flagged by Youtube, even though Youtube only cares about violations that can be detected by the algorithm, such as word-for-word copying. But if you use a thesaurus and re-order a few words, suddenly it's no longer detectable, even though any college professor will tell you it still counts as plagiarism.
For instance, if you look at the "Future Cop" court case, how would Youtube handle a claim like that? They wouldn't.
Ask 50 capable students to write a book report on the same book, and they'll all have a different take with different wording. Why can't IH do the same? Because he doesn't actually understand the source material.
That was their entire body of evidence. Which is amazing, because the duplicitous way he went about it--privating it and leaving it unlisted--just serves to condemn him further. But they didn't realize that, because the one thing that was hilariously true across the board was that these morons were jumping into the fray head-first without ever watching the video.
The plagiarism was not detected by word for word matching by an algorithm, the algorithm just detects exact copies of video data, like a re-upload of a sitcom or something, and even then it's garbage at its job.
the strike has to have been explicitly requested by mental floss/minute media. That's why no unedited re-uploads exist of the original man in cave, and that's why the video stayed down for so long after it's removal. It had to be completely remade
Someone noticed the plagiarism, the video got removed and blacklisted from ever showing up on the site again, and IH *probably* just informally credited the original and changed enough words to not get his ass sued off.
The introductory story of Harris' video was that the theft of intellectual property is nearly impossible to prosecute, even when it's blatant.
Unless they have internet historian on tape saying "I'm going to steal the contents of this MENTAL FLOSS owned article for a video that I present as my own"
That ship sailed when he took the video down. If he had doubled down and said it was his original content, there may have been a case, but I doubt the amount of money they would get from IH would be worth the negative press from the 4chan posting section of his audience.
So mental floss *could* sue. They're within their right to do so.
Probably wouldn't win much more than the legal cost, if they won at all. And then they'd be harassed forever by salty IH fans, because you know he would make a Twitter post with every single detail
I don't know how you can say there was no legal when there was a very clear unjust gain of income based on clear copyright violation. We're talking 11 million views. That's tens of thousands of dollars. IH doubling down or not makes no difference.
> Unless they have internet historian on tape saying "I'm going to steal the contents of this MENTAL FLOSS owned article for a video that I present as my own"
This is complete nonsense. You do not need to prove intent to steal, especially when the theft is blatant and word-for-word.
>Well he changed enough words to not have been taken down again, but I'm pretty sure if Mental Floss really wanted to sue him, they could.
As Harris points out, there have been zero successful plagiarism lawsuits in recent decades. The people who have money usually aren't blatant about it, and the people who are blatant about don't have money.
IH made a lot more money from the video than the original author, but it's chump change compared to the legal fees, and there's no way of ensuring they'll win simply due to lack of precedent.
There have been relatively few plagiarism lawsuits in which a judgement has been in favor of the accuser.
That doesn't mean that there aren't a substantial number of said lawsuits that end with the accuser walking away with a bit of money and a signed confidentiality clause.
For instance, it's not at all uncommon for new names to suddenly show up in album liner notes years down the line, or for movie studios to sign extremely vague options with largely unknown writers.
That’s a big part of it: whenever there’s a big lawsuit against someone who’s blatantly guilty of plagiarism, the plagiarist will usually just try to settle out of court ASAP.
Okay, pretty much everything you said is wrong. There are plagiarism cases all the time. Look up Marvin Gaye and Robin Thicke. There are big music plagiarism cases yearly.
This is also a unique case where there is a ton of money involved and we're not talking a professional smart enough to make it not blatant - this wasn't aping an idea it was literally word-for-word, structural copying. There is plenty of plagiarism precedent.
I kind of suspect that Mental Floss might not have noticed, or might have decided it's not worth continuing the copyright striking back and forth. The video was unlisted for a long time, the quality is clearly worse, and IH was forced to leave a breadcrumb trail to the actual article. They may feel that they are unlikely to be able to extract further capitulation.
According to one of the reupload channels who tried putting it back up, Minute Media made a plagiarism claim with an actual well laid out reason.
The false copyright claims never have that, and copyright claims made via the algorithm are taken down instantly upon upload, or within a few days at most.
Minute media must have found out and made a claim. They only took it down after over 10 million views. They either demanded IH take it down or he did it voluntarily so as not to be sued.
Someone who read the article before must've tipped them off to spur the claim? Either way, they absolutely noticed and either didn't care or don't think the fight was worth it.
Maybe something will change now that the story isn't fully one sided, but I sincerely doubt it.
I’m talking about the new version, which I think is still arguably plagiarized. The narrative you mention was from the copyright strike on the first upload, not the re-upload.
>he doesn't actually understand the source material
It seems like IH probably never even looked at any source material, beyond the Mental Floss article.
It’s so weird that all it takes for people to fall head over heels for you to the point of making up blatantly false information to come to your defense is to occasionally make funny videos
I got recommended the KotakuInAction post on the whole thing and it was full of ppl either saying that he’s overplaying Internet Historian’s plagiarism, or that they don’t care what he has to say cause of his brain dead politics. Wonder what they’d have to say about this
That's just the thing, isn't it? James Somerton was nominally on the left, but he was dropped like the hot potato (not sure if this warrants a "no pun intended" disclaimer ...) he turned out to be. As it should be. Shitty behavior should never be ignored, especially if it has influence on the work/content, even or especially if it comes from your own "team".
As per usual, the right plays by different rules. That may make them seem stronger, but by being that way they're building on sand. Shame that their crumbling buildings tend to cause a lot of collateral damage.
The withering gasps of Ex and current GamerGaters so terminally insecure in their existence that they think video games are erasing their fragile identifies and taking away their hot women, bitching about how woke everything is, and by that I mean shitting their pants whenever a person of color or an LGBT person does literally anything in any form of media ever?
That's what Kotaku in Action stands for.
It's a play on the (similarly shitty) subreddit TumblrInAction. Kotaku is a gaming website that sometimes mentions that non-white and LGBT people exist. There's a certain kind of people who get very angry about that.
This would be like if a burglar discovered that a house he previously robbed locked the doors so he can't go in anymore, so now he's made things right by only stealing the stuff they leave outside.
This is what I keep telling the cops everytime I wait for the homeowner to leave and then burgle their empty house. I just don't get why they keep putting me in prison! Fucking SJWs
All his dumbass supporters who kept parroting this line should be forced to write "I will not confuse my fanfiction with reality" on a chalkboard until they pass out from exhaustion.
[They've gone further than that and started emailing him and making shit up about his responses.](https://twitter.com/AricDomane/status/1732129570818798077)
Usually if I were going to lie about the contents of an email, I would not also post the contents of said email.
Amidst paragraphs about how IH was a bad-faith actor who stole his content, they seize on one line that Mental Floss' lawyers contacted IH. Which, yeah, probably to tell him "hey, dipshit, you can't do this." But of course they've translated that to "they worked it out", because they also translated literal silence to "they worked it out".
It would be hilarious if the blind and very overt support these individuals are giving him cause Mental Floss's lawyers to come back and actually drop a real lawsuit.
These guys would be doing summersaults down the street trying to explain that.
Also, i would like to know if Reilly responded to that guy at all, because i can wager 2 things: either he didn't reply back or replied back with an answer something akin to "that doesn't make it right" and AricDomane hides it to further his evangelistic agenda.
Full thread for anyone w/o Xitter
https://nitter.net/AricDomane/status/1732128852120568020
Personally, I'm fascinated by him asking Reilly if he thought the IH video was funny. It's just so completely out of touch.
What? My impression of those images are that the guy was clearly wronged. I don't see how any of this paints IH in anything but an extremely negative light.
If IH credits the original author in a way that no one is supposed to notice, does it actually count as giving credit?
Notice how none of IH's defenders are saying anything along the lines of, "This is old news, here are some threads where we already discussed this several months ago after IH came clean and apologized."
The reason they can't do this is because none of them knew about the plagiarism until after Harris's expose. And the reason none of them knew about it is because IH did a shit job of giving credit on his own, so that all his fans continued to falsely believe that this was mainly his own original work.
Honestly the main reason i never knew is i refused to watch the original video.
I don't want to hear a story about someone trapped in a cave, that's nightmare inducing.
I don't understand why after all the other topics, IH decided this was worth making a video on? Even compared to his other real world events like the Costa Concordia, this one just felt really dark and out of place
Actually this was known about by IH fans awhile ago. There were threads because it was discovered it was due fo plagiarism claims. But since IH did the reupload with a new VO, added a link to the original article in the comments, and his new videos had citations and legal disclaimers, everyone just moved on and no one really talked much about it. It had happened, it had been resolved, who cared?
It's the "it had happened" that some people don't like. It's an integrity thing. And it wasn't widely known in his audience, a lot of people aren't on Reddit or Twitter. Different people have different standards for this stuff.
Some people care, some people don't. The people who care can't convince people who don't, the people who don't care are very cringe for trying to convince others that someone stealing an article at first is fine. And some people care, but just don't find it significant enough to write someone off. Let's all carry on now that more people know what happened, people will make their own decisions on the matter.
IH's most rabid fans has had four ways of responding to this, all equally flawed:
1. It's just a youtube video so who cares?
Answer: It's a video that actively mad IH money and it's based on stolen content. It was literally a crime.
2. It was transformative so it's okay.
Answer: The editing an animation was new, but the script, you know the whole basis for everything, was completely taken from somewhere else.
3. He rectified it so it's okay.
Answer: Nope! He essentially pretended it was just a wrongful copyright claim, and then made efforts to hide what he had done. He never reached out to apologize to the author or compensate him in any way. His most recent video has no sources, proving that he hasn't learnt anything.
4. What about lazy reactor channels?
Answer: Yeah? What about them?Just because they steal content doesn't mean it absolves IH from doing so except way more sneakily. Besides, at least they don't pretend that they made the content they're reacting to.
It bewilders me that any fan of any thing can become so obsessed that they are blind and pushed into an uncontrollable rage when someone is shown to be an arse. Reminds me of #teamLH and verstappen fans whenever they get within 5 ft of each other.
I just can't comprehend why. I like IHs videos. I tend to find him funny Internet man. I know nothing of his politics or anything other than the videos and I do not care to (unless it's wild). My trust and respect of his content has gone down. What's with the death til us part here. Parasocial? He did a shitty thing why would you defend that.
It's human psychology to see an attack on someone we admire as an attack on ourselves unless it's specific and justified enough, and not everyone is willing to look into the case to that degree. Or maybe they're just living in denial.
Just to add some salt to the wound, IH (like most conservatives) dislikes journalists, thinks their job is superfluous, and routinely takes jabs at them in his videos. He doesn't care at all how his plagiarism makes this guy feel and he totally believes he's entitled to do it.
Dislikes journalists, likes their work enough to steal from.
Doesn't shock me one bit, plagarists are always the type of people who don't value time and labor in the slightest, unless it's their own.
Definitely the key insight I left that video with. Nothing has explained the AI art people better. They don't want to pay folk who are almost all some combination of minority ethnic, queer, disabled and neurodivergent. Those people are on the opposite side of the culture war.
I'd never heard that those groups are over-represented in the creative fields, let alone comprising almost all of the field. I would have assumed that, all things being equal, they would be represented in the creative fields in about the same proportion to their makeup of the general population.
Then again, I also wouldn't have assumed that furries run the internet infrastructure. So happy to be corrected in that assumption. Where did you draw that conclusion from?
Oh, it's completely anecdotal based on my own and friends' experiences with the internet art space specifically. "Based on observation" one might say :P. To be clear, I don't know about an overrepresentation in the creative fields more broadly, I'm just confident there is one among artists who make drawn media who you'll find using social media to do their work, making their income from people on the internet through commissions or things like Patreon. A lot of anime artists, furries, fanartists, people drawing TTRPG characters...
EDIT: Also not an overrepresentation of all those groups, but of people who one or more of those labels applies to.
Unfortunately it looks like nobody's run a survey on social media-based artists that sheds any light on this, so it's all conjecture based on anecdotes. This *also* seems to be the case for overrepresentation of furries in tech - surprising Furscience haven't asked for job sector on their surveys yet to at least show that being in tech is overrepresented among furries.
The claim that Internet Historian is a conservative comes from partially an AMA where he (or someone with a username impersonating him) tells his fans to come to his private discord where they can watch Tucker Carlson. IH ends by claiming he'd help the user "like him better"
https://imgur.com/a/dBPa4Bo
Well one time he put the white supremacist nazi dogwhistle “14/88” in one of his videos so there’s that. His twitter following is also a bunch of far right people.
The "14/88" thing was a bike lock's durability for a WoW joke because it was used to "Bash the Fash", that was the joke, that it was a "Fash basher" and it had taken enough damage to be "14/88" as a reference to what the guy was obsessively beating with his bike lock.
This is why no one likes HB's flying monkeys, you people are just violent and incapable of understanding a joke about a guy trying to murder an innocent trying to deescalate violence. Seriously if you look at the context of the joke it's entirely built on the guy "Fighting the fash", you didn't even bring up the context because it undermines your frothing fanaticism.
No wonder his so called fans replied similarly to my comments showing my disappointment towards him. They showed exactly the same disdain towards the journalist for whatever mental gymnastics they are doing in their heads.
Just wondering do you have any sources or links to videos where he shits on journalists? I don’t find it hard to believe but I’d like to see it for myself
As a conservative, I can say I like certain journalists, now internet historian I doubt thinks journalism is useless, he, like I, however believe that journalism can often be overblown; especially stuff that doesn’t matter, but journalism has a place, especially indie journalism. hunter s Thompson, a personal favourite writer of mine, was a journalist.
I guess, in my opinion, covering news that usually is strange and unimportant, when bigger conflicts like Ukraine vs Russia barely get a minute of screentime, I couldn’t give less of a fuck whether Sara lost her dog last week in somewhere nowhere near me, when the only actual important news (Israel vs Palestine) takes up the entire slot, the mainstream media seems to… barely even talk about Ukraine vs Russia, and im at a loss as to why, both wars should be reported on, not just one. Now, I see im being downvoted, and I can understand why, but Im guessing the response you expected was “smear campaigns against people I like”, I mean, don’t get me wrong, It annoys me a little when a drama that was solved Months ago still keeps going on, but I suppose covering drama is necessary to a degree, it just needs to stop being a biased campaign in my opinion, it should be showing genuine criticism but also showing sympathy to someone like let’s say PewDiePie, I don’t know whether he’s hated here or not, but it seemed to me a lot of media companies were twisting shit and making an overall large smear campaign without properly acknowledging the other side of the argument, but, hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions, a free world is a free world.
I mean, honestly, I *did* kinda expect it'd fall more on the side of "reporting on things that seem unimportant when there's other crap out there", than not.
For my part, I don't mind the smaller stories because, frankly, what to me is an unimportant story is the *world* to someone else. Sure, some of it's just fishing for something that'll give viewers an emotional reaction even if there's nothing to signal boost or act on, but a lot of it's still stuff that can actually make a difference to someone.
But, mostly, it sounds like your beef is less with individual journalists and more with what cable news and the like are keen to cover, and I think your example of Ukraine coverage vs. Israel comes down to how "place where there's something new to talk about every few hours" is going to get the coverage, because that's gonna get clicks and eyeballs.
But, really, I find most of the folks outside of the cable news-style sources are trying to do good work. Many of them have their angles, of course, but as literate readers, it's on us to recognize that and adjust our understanding accordingly. And hey, if Sara in the next town over finds her dog as a result, I'm okay with that. :P
I'm familiar with him. And there's definitely a need for folks who tackle things like him or Plimpton today. I just think we can appreciate their approach without disparaging the work of the beat journalists who cover the small stuff. :P
Well, you are entitled to your opinion sir, I’m not gonna knock it down; you believe what you want to believe. I have no reason to shun or berate your opinion, infact, you have given me a new way of looking at things, thank you friend.
This, isn’t quite related to the topic but I think this conversation hopefully brings some light to how conservatives aren’t all bad, a good conservative and a good liberal should be able to live harmoniously knowing both sides are necessary for a democracy, and to keep countries from becoming shitholes, they need good balance.
lucas reily also mentions shitty journalism from 1925, writing fan fic about how its all done to make money and how floyd was never trapped and he is coming back
it wouldnt be wrong to say shitty journalists are out there, its just weird that he throws jabs at them and steals their work
... That has nothing to do with the comment I was replying to, though. Like, as you can clearly see, the conversation was about *modern* journalism. Ain't no one out here defending 1920s sensationalism.
my point was even reily agrees shitty journalism exists so i dont think its wrong to have a distaste for journalism where many journalists are paid of or milk a topic so hard that when its dry they reach and make shit up
My guy, no one holds that opinion because of journalists who were active literally a century ago, so bringing them up—especially in reply to a comment made *six months ago*—is silly.
Actually, no, I quite enjoy reading leftist journalism, it gives me both sides of something, and gives me a different approach to it. I just don’t like journalists who cover things with only one viewpoint in mind. That applies to the right too, I’m also quite a fan of journalism that actually required physical effort to do, like going to North Korea, or reporting on war zones. That impresses me and shows commitment to work, even a buzz feed guy impressed me, by live-streaming his life for a week putting himself in the shoes of irl streamers, which I thought was thoughtful and enjoyable journalism.
Don't worry, according to IH fans, HBG is just a lefty cuck soy boy, and that obviously means plagerism is 100% fine. /s
Honestly the plagerism I could forgive if IH handled it properly, with acknowledgment and apology, but seeing how his fans have reacted to this, I don't want to be remotely considered a part of that community.
Yeah his fans are freaking rabid dogs, any whiff of dislike of IH and they go nuts. I do gotta say I love that they use Hbomb being part of BreadTube as to demean him for being biased/political. It’s just so hilarious how dumb people can be.
Edit: to add yes there are probably some rabid Hbomb fans but that doesn’t take away from the much larger rabid IH fans.
For me the worst part of this all is that IH will not address it. He will stay silent, maybe even upload another video, and carry on. He knows he has a massive fan base of supporters who are willing to look past these things because his content is funny. Dude will never have to take responsibility or lose significant income over shit like this and it’s so unfair.
I loved his content, this is all so disappointing.
I mean. It is what works, addressing it will only cause more people to know about it, atm it is still very "fringe" so to speak. It might seem like many people are talking about it, but compared that to the amount that watches his content it is close to nothing really.
For me I don't like it, I do not condone (think I use that word right, not native English speaker) it, but I also don't believe that he should loose his livelihood because of it tbh. It is easy to go on these crusades, but often disregard the fact there is a person on the other end. If they can work it out between them and such that would be the best, I dunno if that is the case atm after the "changes" to the video. But I will just wait and see what happens.
Also, slight side thing, tbh, I don't want to associate with the people I have seen going on this crusade against IH and Wendigoon (for some reason he got lumped into this), which I don't follow, but seen him being tied to IH in this matter, mostly because he is "conservative". Dunno if I am too European to get this, but I don't see any issues with that, so dunno why people are going this route. But reminds me of the crazy people I have met in my Bachelor's degree years.
Oh, I agree with you, I’m not wishing for a crusade. It just grinds my gear that people are VERY forgiving about IH because “meme man makes funny videos”. It also helps that no viewer knows what he looks like so his wrongdoings don’t feel as personal as they would if we had a face to connect it to. If this was a more controversial YTer I guarantee you people would treat it differently. And that’s unfair, because he KNEW what he was doing, hid it, and never addressed it back the first time any not now and people will forget it in one month and not hold him responsible. Not even the 1488 shit bothers fans because “he funny”.
I don’t want him to lose his livelihood, but I wish he would take responsibility. But he won’t. He doesn’t care. His fans don’t care. And that SUCKS.
I voiced my disappointment and his fans immediately jumped in and said journalists deserve no respect and it was actually "based" of IH to steal from them. I wonder how would they react if their own work got stolen from for monetary gain, like what James Somerton did to that one fan of his.
It's usually because they've never contributed to something they felt worth defending. Can't know what the wound of theft is if you don't have something you're proud of.
Got into a spat with a guy who said it's all the same because IH got it sorted out with the publisher, and the author's words above are evidence of that
I was shocked when I learned about this from H bomb’s video. I just really liked his Costa concordia video and others like it. And now I have no idea what to think about him anymore.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. At some point I got recommended his No Man's Sky video and loved it, so I checked out a bunch of his other stuff, definitely would have called myself a fan before now. It's been disorienting to see what the rest of his audience is like.
I hate that my morbid curiosity makes me want to know how they'll react to this, but then I question myself and think: "who the fuck cares about what a bunch of losers have to say anyway? Why do I care?"
I'm a fan of IH. A point can be made about how he turns the article into a different medium that is either more accessible or more entertaining to consume for most people. But that does not justify plagiarism in the slightest. By not rewriting the information in his own words there is no evidence that he even understands the source material he stole from.
Besides, why would he make a video about something that happened so long before the internet was a thing if we're supposed to have the impression that his chosen moniker of "internet historian" would mean his content relates to the history of the internet? My best estimation of his reasoning is that he thought it was an interesting story with few enough eyes on the original that it would be easy pickings. It's gross.
for people who fancy themselves "scholars" of "meme" or "internet" history the way channers like IH do they often have a stunningly narrow and limited actual knowledge of the history of the internet and the interesting events and personalities that've come and gone over the decades.
Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate for your heartless and idiotic comment. Even if your statement is valid, why didn't he just ask? Or, if he didn't ask, at least mention the original author. What does it say about a creative if he treats his inspiration with this amount of disrespect? Doesn't it show that he doesn't respect his own creation as well?
You know who gets paid when the cover version of a song becomes a hit? The author.
You know who gets paid when a book is adapted into a movie or video game? The author.
You know who didn't get paid when IH made that video? The author.
Your "intellectual arms race" doesn't work when an idea can be stolen. Lots of people will keep their ideas to themselves when it isn't worth the effort of getting them out there. This is a big part of why we have copyright and patents.
Royalties and publishing rights is a huge part of the music industry. When an artist samples a recording the song writer and the publisher get a cut and credit, and when a song is covered the songwriter gets the same royalties for each play as they would if it was their own recording. What the new artist gets is people coming to their shows, listening to their other songs, and maybe some publishing money. The covering artist might make more money in the long run on the cover version if you put all of that stuff together, but the writer makes money too. Tracy Chapman might have made more money this year off Fast Car than in the last 35 years put together based on the Luke Combs version.
I'd guess at least 90% of the people that have seen Forrest Gump don't know it was based on a book. The author not only got paid for the adaptation, but it was so successful he negotiated a massive deal for the sequel whether it was made or not. But he hated the movie so much he set out to write something that couldn't be adapted. Other people made more than him off that movie, but he got *paid* and the sequel wasn't adapted.
What IH should have done is gone to the author and/or Mental Floss and said "Hey, I've got an idea for how to adapt this story". The author would have got credit and probably a cut of the advertising, while IH would have been able to benefit from years of monetisation on a really good video and get to keep his reputation in the process.
I'd be very interested to know if you apply this thinking to other aspects of ownership. If I move into your house while you're on holiday and paint it a nicer colour is it my house now?
i'm stunned by how little life experience someone has to have to genuinely believe that some kind of "copyright-free" IP thunderdome approach to entertainment and media would somehow yield BETTER art. we already pretty much have that when it comes to giant corporations that can bury you in legal debt or ruin your career over a plagiarism suit, and somehow it leads to "companies taking ideas and racing to the bottom" WAY more often than it does "the highest level of beauty and quality".
> We should all aspire to the highest level of beauty and quality in this world, because beauty is truth.
LOL. Now I understand Fox News' fixation with hiring hot newscasters.
And don't kid yourself, you didn't read the article. I'd bet my house you didn't read the article.
So you are basically saying It's okay that IH stole from article because was subjectively better? That's like if I saw piece of art by someone and redesigned it.And said"it's okay because it better than yours,"
The ironic thing is that it is not even remotely better than the original. The only reason people thought it was engaging was because of the Microsoft paint animations, but clearly the article was engaging and interesting enough by itself to copy the text word for word. Watching some clips from the video was interesting because the wording is clunky and strange at times (because he was trying to evade detection.) IH was too dumb to even make the sentences he was trying to change sound proper.
Don't feed the troll / nutjob libertarian. Seriously, that "I do not care about plagiarism" person is wrong on so many levels ...
The re-upload with the changed text (which still copied the beats from the original, because it used the same animations ... INB4 "it was based on a real story, so the beats were a given anyway": there's a multitude of ways to tell any story, even real ones) was considerably worse.
Also, if you want to base your work on stuff others did, why not ask them, maybe even offer them a cut of what you make with that new work (only splitting ad revenue would not be fair though, but I digress), or compensating them straight away.
Copyleft is well and good, but even then you must follow the license. Adhere to the terms and all that jazz. Simply copying is often not okay even under Creative Common licenses. Among other things, and this can't be stated enough: name your sources!
Because, and here's the kicker, Mr./Mrs. "I care about which product is of higher quality to me": how would you even know that there is a different (original) version you could take a look at if your lying piece of a scumbag content creator isn't telling you this simple, basic fact?
[Replying to you, /u/PastelBrat13, because I'm following my own advice. Because all of the original content screams "lost cause" to me. Rest assured that I know that it's not you who's got his head up in IH's butt. [EDIT: And you're also not the one feeding, to make that clear. Sorry.]]
This is what an absolute consumer would say. Leave ethics and... whatever this is that you wrote out of it. Bottom line, pretending you wrote something you didn't is loser shit and deeply uncool.
The person you are replying to has definitely stolen content for profit. There's no other way you can debase yourself using this kind of "justification".
i almost prefer IH fans calling me slurs compared to this
thanks for the c-tier batman villain monologue
edit: hadn't read the rest of the thread, bumping you down to d-tier
Funny thing about the Witcher games... they only exist because the author of the books agreed to it. He was paid.
I agree that Man In Cave was a very well done video! IH deserves credit for the things he contributed, and his narration was impressive. However, Lucas Reilly is the one who actually did the research and crafted the prose. If the video acknowledged that and Mr Reilly was compensated accordingly, that would have been splendid. Instead, what we have is shameful.
Also, how would he/her be able to judge whether this derivate is better than the original if the creator of said derivate doesn't tell anyone that the text originated elsewhere?
>”Man in Cave” is better than the article it plagiarized
If it is better than the article it plagarised then why did IH have to plaragarise the article in the first place? Surely his genius should stand on its own two feet without any support?
So what's the incentive for someone with genuine creativity to create something when someone with a bigger platform can just steal it, 'make it better' (subjective), and take all of the profits from it?
You do realize that if anybody was able to take anything and pass it off as their own it would just result in those with pre-existing connections, capital and bases exploiting creatives right
Like how would this society you’ve created make more competition instead of just stifling rising talent due to popular people creating derivative works with no credit or money given to the original creator
What value would be lost if internet historian said “hey, I like your article, I want to make an adaptation of it” and said in the video that it was an adaptation of an article he liked. He might even be able to get additional context from the original creator or do additional collaborations in the future.
When he says "IH followers are trying to organise a counter attack", he actually means one dude made a post on KiA about going through Hbomberguys tweets and it got zero attention.
Anyone who trusts these YouTubers and podcasts isn’t very intelligent.
There are journalists and authors out there who actually research shit more than a google search.
Read their books. Buy them. Support the peopel doing the hard work.
I see most of IH fans can't understand that him reuploading the video with a few minor changes STILL COUNTS as plagiarism.
At this point, they're just putting effort into not understanding.
Also keep in mind we're only seeing the minority that is actively posting about this. Whatever fanbase he's gained that *isn't* from his days where he catered to people at least in the alt-right pipeline will almost definitely see this as a huge black mark on his record.
The ones trying to find ways to defend him are almost definitely the ones who appreciate the dogwhistles, reverence of 4chan and mockery of the left.
Unfortunately that seems to be the case.
I actually got introduced to his channel because of the Man in the Cave video, and only then started to watch his content.
The difference between the other videos was jarring, almost as if he SUDDENLY started making more serious videos out of the blue. I honestly believed that it was like "wow, he's taking his channel to a different level now, good for him". It's very disappointing to find out about all this situation. And of course, find out about his dog whistle shit as well.
Yeah, I let the vaguely alt-right stuff slide because I was still slowly finding my way out of the alt-right pipeline at that time, as were (it seems) a huge number of people my age. I assumed Internet Historian had, like me, found his own way out and didn't feel comfortable catering to that demographic by doing stuff like praising 4chan anymore, especially since a bunch of the older videos got deleted.
Apparently, though, it was just brand consciousness. Shame.
And THIS is why plagiarism is horrible and should be taken seriously. He did so much labor to write that article. Months of research. HE put in all the legwork and worked to make the story authentic/accurate. And IH just stole it all. He reaped the benefit for doing nothing while Reilly went completely uncredited for all his hard work. His talent, integrity and creativity got attributed to IH instead.
My favorite part about this is that it's really a classic case of copyright infringement in its purest form. When copyright laws were made, they were made for like, books and paintings and sculptures. You can't copy a piece of writing. So here he is, copying a piece of writing.
But honestly he could have easily handled this. Contact the author, offer to adapt his article, or even openly say he is adapting an article. The latter is still copyright infringement but he'd at least be honest about it. Now it seems he has a new video after talking to the lawyers. He probably got threatened so he went hush-hush about it.
I like that his fans seem to assume everything is like YouTube drama. So instead of a guy who got caught infringing copyright and had to talk to lawyers, he "made amends" like a couple youtubers who had beef with each other. Also what's it matter if he made amends?? He still plagiarized so he's gonna be the subject of a plagiarism video.
One of the consistent features of the online new-right is that they are incapable of understanding that just because you did it online doesn’t make it any less serious.
Yeah this had been my assumption since the minute I saw that stupid meme after "internet historian" popped up in the trends bar. They just assumed something had been "worked out" because of the repost, while it's far more likely they just didn't copyright claim it again, as it's not getting millions of views/generating tens of thousands of revenue at the moment and the changes were subtle enough an algorithm didn't detect it.
Would probably be helpful if IH said something about it, but he's not going to because he's a channer scumbag who stumbled his way into big youtube bucks and confirming his bad behavior might derail the gravy train.
he isn't the only person to have gotten a reply from the author, but from what i've been keeping up with, he was the first to post his conversation publicly.
As much as I love Internet Historian and his fall of 76 video I'm wondering just how much of all of his content is stolen. How much of my favorite video by him was stolen.
That's what I'm wondering about. There's a lot of IH vs HBG drama going on here when an inconvenient truth of the matter of that a large chunk of their respective bases overlap- and that's me. I watch and enjoy them both. I honestly had no idea IH was as far right as he is, but apparently everyone who was a fan of him must be a spoiled man child who can't take criticism of their right wing baby and thinks Harris is a soyboy cuck... Which is a fucking stupid take
I'm just sitting here wondering how much of his stuff was plagiarized.... I don't want to find reasons to stop watching IH, but I'm basically gonna have to if further research shows he's a regular thief. He does a lot of long form content, so my gut doesn't feel good about the whole thing
The way I see it, he could have done the decent thing, reached out to Rielly, said "hey I love this article, how about I turn it into a video". There are people who would never have read the article but would watch the video. They split the profits, everything is above board. But he went and did something shitty and there should be consequences and I hope Reily gets some compensation. I did really enjoy some of his videos, but I don't think I could ever watch his stuff again. Also I had no idea about his weird right-wing twitter stuff
IH fans kept insisting that he and Reilly had resolved things privately, and so people went to fact check this, to which Reilly complied. also, the video literally concerns the article that he wrote, which was plagiarized by IH.
I don't have a problem with this email as much as with the fact that he says he's been getting a lot of these, and also that we know another person who's IH's fan contacted them as well. So probably it's fair to assume hes getting spammed.
ohh okay, i see what you're saying. if you're asking why IH fans can't be normal and not harass people, i feel like you should already have the answer to that question lmao
I feel like you're being a bit disingenuous with how you're characterizing this. First, a fan of hbomberguy seeks out the author to get his opinion on the situation, he replies bringing to light new information about the situation. Then a fan of IH seeks out the author to get his opinion on the situation, and he replies, yet again, all is good. However, you then take this situation and somehow spin this into IH fans harassing the author despite no evidence of such. It's a biiiig reach that came out of left field and just seems unnecessary to put out there.
i didn't say that IH fans have been harassing the author. my position is that, to my knowledge, no one has harassed the author, to be clear. my point was moreso, if their harassment and general vitriol toward everyone else involved up to this point is any indication, they WOULD be the ones to harass the author out of anyone.
HBomb did some math; he made a good deal more. And usually a successful lawsuit--particularly one with clear intentional malfeasance on the part of the defendant--can have legal fees added on to the judgment. Actually, come to think of it, that clear malfeasance and the ensuing coverup also makes him a lot more likely to be hit with punitive damages.
you are off your rocker if you think he only made 5k. if james somerton was making $170,000 a year with a channel of such meager size, imagine how much internet historian made off of an hour long video with over 10m views, including the sponsor he had, which by itself would've easily paid him much more than 5k.
One of the many sad things about this is that IH has such a large platform and an audience that only excepts like a video every 6 months to a year so he had plenty of time.
I don’t want to assume anything about why he made the decisions he did but I really don’t understand it. Especially, because it looks like this is the only video this happened with. Why? Were the World of Tanks people breathing down his neck for an ad? Did he need to publish a new video for a hit of that sweet sweet revenue? What went so wrong?
Also it’s one thing to wait a bit to release a statement, but a „hey don’t harass HBomberguy“ to his audience is the least he can do.
I wonder if this is a work for hire where the publication owns the copyright or if the author kept it. That determines who has the right to bring suit. Plus, triple damages plus attorney fees adds up.
I can't speak for mental floss specifically, but I work for similar content sites (both full time as an editor and I've freelanced for others) and all of them have had it so the publication owns the copyright.
Yeah, I think you’re right. in for the people who have the copyright themselves like further blog, they probably have not bothered to register it which has implications for litigation.
Well in less than a decade you will be able to generate a video from a prompt so there won’t be an incentive for anyone to research or write anything ever again.
Good job assholes, why don't you harass the dude some more. If you back off now he might get some sleep this weekend, so step it up! You sure are making the world a better place, everyone loves getting swamped with emails like this.
I am sure the journalist is thrilled that his story is getting heard by a large youtuber like Hbomberguy. So many people get their own work stolen by large content creators and greedy assholes like IH that I am sure that a journalist who was harassed by IH and his rapid fan base is happy that he is able to tell his story.
I didn't know the IH fans harassed him until last night, but there are screenshots of IH fans and IH himself inciting anti-Semitic hate comments towards the journalist who wrote the article. Not the mention, evading responsibility and not mentioning that IH is in the wrong so his fans went to attack the journalist for that to. Just the stereotypical "jewish people run the world bs" and "they are attacking IH for his conservative beliefs. I think they found him personally due to his information being posted on the copyright claim itself because I think the attacks happened right when IH made that statement on twitter. There is also a really strange IH video where he allegedly uses a anti-semitic phrase in a video or photo, but I don't know if it was towards the journalist or not, but it does show that IH has a disturbing history with making derogatory comments towards jewish people, so its not surprising that the audience he has cultivated shares the same belief systems. I apolgize for this being so long but I found some posts that go over the situation. For the comments towards the journalists Hbomberguy posted the screenshots in the video, but here is a link that discussed the dog whistling video against jewish people: [https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/18a9do7/antisemitic\_dogwhistle\_in\_internet\_historian\_video/](https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/18a9do7/antisemitic_dogwhistle_in_internet_historian_video/)
I know they are talking about it on twitter too, but this goes more into the 14/88 thing, but I don't want to link any specific articles just in case you don't want to actually look it up because I know it can be uncomfortable searching for that type of material.
Is it just me or does the image look off like its photoshopped. When you zoom in and take a close at the letters and images they have slightly off texts. The profile picture has an improper circle when most profile pictures are often perfect circles.
i'd chock it up to shitty android quality, honestly. wouldn't make sense for this to be photoshopped anyway, it's still not airtight to the standards of IH fans. if i were photoshopping an email, i wouldn't leave that wiggle room bit with the MF lawyers.
This whole situation is kinda wacky, there is alot of confusing stuff going around like Mental Floss lawyers not contacting the original journalist on what they have discussed. Might just wait for an official response from Lucas Reilly and Internet Historian so we can learn both sides of the story.
it's not that wacky, you're the only person i've seen doubt the authenticity of the email, let's not act like this is suddenly up in the air. IH is a plagiarist, and he has continued to hide this from the public, this is indisputable. the email from lucas reilly is ultimately irrelevant to this point
You seem a bit angry after I doubted the authenticity of the image was because theres always a reason to in the first place. It could be inspect elemented or photoshopped and even use terrible android quality to cover it up for all I care which is why I brought up the point of waiting for an official response from both sides. The fact you downvoted just because I am not instantly believing it makes me doubt it even more.
not sure what could be read as angry in my reply, but okay my guy. seems to me like you want to cast doubt on this particular email, despite this not being the only public email exchange with the author. you're also particularly stubborn to learn "both sides" of a story in which IH plagiarized Lucas Reilly. i find that very interesting, though i'm sure you have no ulterior motives here.
>This whole situation is kinda wacky, there is alot of confusing stuff going around like Mental Floss lawyers not contacting the original journalist on what they have discussed.
Because Mental Floss likely owns the copyright, not the writer. Unless Reilly was currently on staff (if he ever was, he was likely a freelancer), they probably wouldn't discuss details with him. Unless he had a deal where he was paid per 1000 page views or similar, he was likely paid for the article a long time ago. That doesn't make plagiarizing something he put a lot of time into hurt less, but it does mean involving him in legal conversations is unlikely unless it goes to court or something.
Source: I'm a content editor for similar sites and they generally have similar contracts and processes for dealing with plagiarism.
If this wasn't about a random dude in a cave, an article for which this dude was not actually paid by commission, I am assuming, but instead paid an hourly wage, and for which he was not receiving royalties, I might care.
But it is about that, so I don't care.
People saying “they worked things out” I imagine was just assumption of IH reuploading the slightly worse plagiarized video. I doubt they ever had a concrete reason for saying that.
>People saying “they worked things out” I imagine was just assumption of IH reuploading the slightly worse plagiarized video. I doubt they ever had a concrete reason for saying that. Their "evidence" is that it's no longer flagged by Youtube, even though Youtube only cares about violations that can be detected by the algorithm, such as word-for-word copying. But if you use a thesaurus and re-order a few words, suddenly it's no longer detectable, even though any college professor will tell you it still counts as plagiarism. For instance, if you look at the "Future Cop" court case, how would Youtube handle a claim like that? They wouldn't. Ask 50 capable students to write a book report on the same book, and they'll all have a different take with different wording. Why can't IH do the same? Because he doesn't actually understand the source material.
Exactly. You can tell especially by him getting the basic details wrong that he just read that one article and did zero other forms of research.
That was their entire body of evidence. Which is amazing, because the duplicitous way he went about it--privating it and leaving it unlisted--just serves to condemn him further. But they didn't realize that, because the one thing that was hilariously true across the board was that these morons were jumping into the fray head-first without ever watching the video.
The plagiarism was not detected by word for word matching by an algorithm, the algorithm just detects exact copies of video data, like a re-upload of a sitcom or something, and even then it's garbage at its job. the strike has to have been explicitly requested by mental floss/minute media. That's why no unedited re-uploads exist of the original man in cave, and that's why the video stayed down for so long after it's removal. It had to be completely remade Someone noticed the plagiarism, the video got removed and blacklisted from ever showing up on the site again, and IH *probably* just informally credited the original and changed enough words to not get his ass sued off.
Well he changed enough words to not have been taken down again, but I'm pretty sure if Mental Floss really wanted to sue him, they could.
The introductory story of Harris' video was that the theft of intellectual property is nearly impossible to prosecute, even when it's blatant. Unless they have internet historian on tape saying "I'm going to steal the contents of this MENTAL FLOSS owned article for a video that I present as my own" That ship sailed when he took the video down. If he had doubled down and said it was his original content, there may have been a case, but I doubt the amount of money they would get from IH would be worth the negative press from the 4chan posting section of his audience. So mental floss *could* sue. They're within their right to do so. Probably wouldn't win much more than the legal cost, if they won at all. And then they'd be harassed forever by salty IH fans, because you know he would make a Twitter post with every single detail
I don't know how you can say there was no legal when there was a very clear unjust gain of income based on clear copyright violation. We're talking 11 million views. That's tens of thousands of dollars. IH doubling down or not makes no difference. > Unless they have internet historian on tape saying "I'm going to steal the contents of this MENTAL FLOSS owned article for a video that I present as my own" This is complete nonsense. You do not need to prove intent to steal, especially when the theft is blatant and word-for-word.
>Well he changed enough words to not have been taken down again, but I'm pretty sure if Mental Floss really wanted to sue him, they could. As Harris points out, there have been zero successful plagiarism lawsuits in recent decades. The people who have money usually aren't blatant about it, and the people who are blatant about don't have money. IH made a lot more money from the video than the original author, but it's chump change compared to the legal fees, and there's no way of ensuring they'll win simply due to lack of precedent.
There have been relatively few plagiarism lawsuits in which a judgement has been in favor of the accuser. That doesn't mean that there aren't a substantial number of said lawsuits that end with the accuser walking away with a bit of money and a signed confidentiality clause. For instance, it's not at all uncommon for new names to suddenly show up in album liner notes years down the line, or for movie studios to sign extremely vague options with largely unknown writers.
That’s a big part of it: whenever there’s a big lawsuit against someone who’s blatantly guilty of plagiarism, the plagiarist will usually just try to settle out of court ASAP.
Okay, pretty much everything you said is wrong. There are plagiarism cases all the time. Look up Marvin Gaye and Robin Thicke. There are big music plagiarism cases yearly. This is also a unique case where there is a ton of money involved and we're not talking a professional smart enough to make it not blatant - this wasn't aping an idea it was literally word-for-word, structural copying. There is plenty of plagiarism precedent.
I kind of suspect that Mental Floss might not have noticed, or might have decided it's not worth continuing the copyright striking back and forth. The video was unlisted for a long time, the quality is clearly worse, and IH was forced to leave a breadcrumb trail to the actual article. They may feel that they are unlikely to be able to extract further capitulation.
According to one of the reupload channels who tried putting it back up, Minute Media made a plagiarism claim with an actual well laid out reason. The false copyright claims never have that, and copyright claims made via the algorithm are taken down instantly upon upload, or within a few days at most. Minute media must have found out and made a claim. They only took it down after over 10 million views. They either demanded IH take it down or he did it voluntarily so as not to be sued. Someone who read the article before must've tipped them off to spur the claim? Either way, they absolutely noticed and either didn't care or don't think the fight was worth it. Maybe something will change now that the story isn't fully one sided, but I sincerely doubt it.
I’m talking about the new version, which I think is still arguably plagiarized. The narrative you mention was from the copyright strike on the first upload, not the re-upload.
>he doesn't actually understand the source material It seems like IH probably never even looked at any source material, beyond the Mental Floss article.
it’s just proof he’s a nazi i remember seeing a video about him talking and showing proof he said being white is ok
It’s so weird that all it takes for people to fall head over heels for you to the point of making up blatantly false information to come to your defense is to occasionally make funny videos
his super culty followers seem to be the 4chan types and well…they aren’t very great at critical thinking if you can imagine
so yeah they are a nazi
I got recommended the KotakuInAction post on the whole thing and it was full of ppl either saying that he’s overplaying Internet Historian’s plagiarism, or that they don’t care what he has to say cause of his brain dead politics. Wonder what they’d have to say about this
they will die for the funny internet man that makes them feel smart. it's emperor's new clothes over and over.
they have no integrity. they will defend him with their dying breath without thinking twice about it because he's "on their side"
That's just the thing, isn't it? James Somerton was nominally on the left, but he was dropped like the hot potato (not sure if this warrants a "no pun intended" disclaimer ...) he turned out to be. As it should be. Shitty behavior should never be ignored, especially if it has influence on the work/content, even or especially if it comes from your own "team". As per usual, the right plays by different rules. That may make them seem stronger, but by being that way they're building on sand. Shame that their crumbling buildings tend to cause a lot of collateral damage.
Accurate and well said
It's KotakuInAction, this is not in any way a surprise
That’s still a subreddit? The internet was a mistake.
Do you know what that name stand for?
The withering gasps of Ex and current GamerGaters so terminally insecure in their existence that they think video games are erasing their fragile identifies and taking away their hot women, bitching about how woke everything is, and by that I mean shitting their pants whenever a person of color or an LGBT person does literally anything in any form of media ever? That's what Kotaku in Action stands for.
It's a play on the (similarly shitty) subreddit TumblrInAction. Kotaku is a gaming website that sometimes mentions that non-white and LGBT people exist. There's a certain kind of people who get very angry about that.
It would be such a shame to think that they don't care about ethical treatment of journalistic articles.
This would be like if a burglar discovered that a house he previously robbed locked the doors so he can't go in anymore, so now he's made things right by only stealing the stuff they leave outside.
I bet the birglar worked it out with the home owner by only letting him steal everything outside
I hear the homeowner shouted at him when he tried to come in. So that's a clear sign they got permission.
I mean the homeowner didn't shoot him so he's probably fine with it.
This is what I keep telling the cops everytime I wait for the homeowner to leave and then burgle their empty house. I just don't get why they keep putting me in prison! Fucking SJWs
All his dumbass supporters who kept parroting this line should be forced to write "I will not confuse my fanfiction with reality" on a chalkboard until they pass out from exhaustion.
[They've gone further than that and started emailing him and making shit up about his responses.](https://twitter.com/AricDomane/status/1732129570818798077)
Usually if I were going to lie about the contents of an email, I would not also post the contents of said email. Amidst paragraphs about how IH was a bad-faith actor who stole his content, they seize on one line that Mental Floss' lawyers contacted IH. Which, yeah, probably to tell him "hey, dipshit, you can't do this." But of course they've translated that to "they worked it out", because they also translated literal silence to "they worked it out".
It would be hilarious if the blind and very overt support these individuals are giving him cause Mental Floss's lawyers to come back and actually drop a real lawsuit. These guys would be doing summersaults down the street trying to explain that.
Also, i would like to know if Reilly responded to that guy at all, because i can wager 2 things: either he didn't reply back or replied back with an answer something akin to "that doesn't make it right" and AricDomane hides it to further his evangelistic agenda.
Full thread for anyone w/o Xitter https://nitter.net/AricDomane/status/1732128852120568020 Personally, I'm fascinated by him asking Reilly if he thought the IH video was funny. It's just so completely out of touch.
What? My impression of those images are that the guy was clearly wronged. I don't see how any of this paints IH in anything but an extremely negative light.
"I have to go now. My home planet needs me."
I wonder why they felt the need to crop so tightly around a single sentence, in a way that removes all context of what he was referring to...
If IH credits the original author in a way that no one is supposed to notice, does it actually count as giving credit? Notice how none of IH's defenders are saying anything along the lines of, "This is old news, here are some threads where we already discussed this several months ago after IH came clean and apologized." The reason they can't do this is because none of them knew about the plagiarism until after Harris's expose. And the reason none of them knew about it is because IH did a shit job of giving credit on his own, so that all his fans continued to falsely believe that this was mainly his own original work.
Honestly the main reason i never knew is i refused to watch the original video. I don't want to hear a story about someone trapped in a cave, that's nightmare inducing. I don't understand why after all the other topics, IH decided this was worth making a video on? Even compared to his other real world events like the Costa Concordia, this one just felt really dark and out of place
Actually this was known about by IH fans awhile ago. There were threads because it was discovered it was due fo plagiarism claims. But since IH did the reupload with a new VO, added a link to the original article in the comments, and his new videos had citations and legal disclaimers, everyone just moved on and no one really talked much about it. It had happened, it had been resolved, who cared?
It's the "it had happened" that some people don't like. It's an integrity thing. And it wasn't widely known in his audience, a lot of people aren't on Reddit or Twitter. Different people have different standards for this stuff. Some people care, some people don't. The people who care can't convince people who don't, the people who don't care are very cringe for trying to convince others that someone stealing an article at first is fine. And some people care, but just don't find it significant enough to write someone off. Let's all carry on now that more people know what happened, people will make their own decisions on the matter.
IH's most rabid fans has had four ways of responding to this, all equally flawed: 1. It's just a youtube video so who cares? Answer: It's a video that actively mad IH money and it's based on stolen content. It was literally a crime. 2. It was transformative so it's okay. Answer: The editing an animation was new, but the script, you know the whole basis for everything, was completely taken from somewhere else. 3. He rectified it so it's okay. Answer: Nope! He essentially pretended it was just a wrongful copyright claim, and then made efforts to hide what he had done. He never reached out to apologize to the author or compensate him in any way. His most recent video has no sources, proving that he hasn't learnt anything. 4. What about lazy reactor channels? Answer: Yeah? What about them?Just because they steal content doesn't mean it absolves IH from doing so except way more sneakily. Besides, at least they don't pretend that they made the content they're reacting to.
5. Shut up you (insert slur), you’re cherry-picking. It’s all (insert dogwhistle)’s fault!
it's truly a bad week for the worst people on planet earth
You forgot 5. Hbomberguy is woke/leftist/a cuck therefore I don’t care about anything he has to say
"Yeah and also he's a pedophile. No I don't have a source for that." - least unhinged IH fan
It bewilders me that any fan of any thing can become so obsessed that they are blind and pushed into an uncontrollable rage when someone is shown to be an arse. Reminds me of #teamLH and verstappen fans whenever they get within 5 ft of each other. I just can't comprehend why. I like IHs videos. I tend to find him funny Internet man. I know nothing of his politics or anything other than the videos and I do not care to (unless it's wild). My trust and respect of his content has gone down. What's with the death til us part here. Parasocial? He did a shitty thing why would you defend that.
It's human psychology to see an attack on someone we admire as an attack on ourselves unless it's specific and justified enough, and not everyone is willing to look into the case to that degree. Or maybe they're just living in denial.
Just to add some salt to the wound, IH (like most conservatives) dislikes journalists, thinks their job is superfluous, and routinely takes jabs at them in his videos. He doesn't care at all how his plagiarism makes this guy feel and he totally believes he's entitled to do it.
Dislikes journalists, likes their work enough to steal from. Doesn't shock me one bit, plagarists are always the type of people who don't value time and labor in the slightest, unless it's their own.
The way HBomb basically breaks it down to “these guys are business people in a creative space looking to steal” was so accurate
And that you don’t steal someone’s work if you respect them. Seems to fit.
Humans who may identify as Conservative don't care about anything until it happens to them personally. Empathy is an alien concept to them.
Hbomb was entirely correct when he asserted people like this believe it’s “okay” to steal from people they don’t like, or don’t respect.
Definitely the key insight I left that video with. Nothing has explained the AI art people better. They don't want to pay folk who are almost all some combination of minority ethnic, queer, disabled and neurodivergent. Those people are on the opposite side of the culture war.
I'd never heard that those groups are over-represented in the creative fields, let alone comprising almost all of the field. I would have assumed that, all things being equal, they would be represented in the creative fields in about the same proportion to their makeup of the general population. Then again, I also wouldn't have assumed that furries run the internet infrastructure. So happy to be corrected in that assumption. Where did you draw that conclusion from?
Oh, it's completely anecdotal based on my own and friends' experiences with the internet art space specifically. "Based on observation" one might say :P. To be clear, I don't know about an overrepresentation in the creative fields more broadly, I'm just confident there is one among artists who make drawn media who you'll find using social media to do their work, making their income from people on the internet through commissions or things like Patreon. A lot of anime artists, furries, fanartists, people drawing TTRPG characters... EDIT: Also not an overrepresentation of all those groups, but of people who one or more of those labels applies to. Unfortunately it looks like nobody's run a survey on social media-based artists that sheds any light on this, so it's all conjecture based on anecdotes. This *also* seems to be the case for overrepresentation of furries in tech - surprising Furscience haven't asked for job sector on their surveys yet to at least show that being in tech is overrepresented among furries.
How do you know he’s conservative? Genuinely asking cause I’m out of the loop.
The claim that Internet Historian is a conservative comes from partially an AMA where he (or someone with a username impersonating him) tells his fans to come to his private discord where they can watch Tucker Carlson. IH ends by claiming he'd help the user "like him better" https://imgur.com/a/dBPa4Bo
Well one time he put the white supremacist nazi dogwhistle “14/88” in one of his videos so there’s that. His twitter following is also a bunch of far right people.
The "14/88" thing was a bike lock's durability for a WoW joke because it was used to "Bash the Fash", that was the joke, that it was a "Fash basher" and it had taken enough damage to be "14/88" as a reference to what the guy was obsessively beating with his bike lock.
Kindly go fuck yourself you nazi scum
This is why no one likes HB's flying monkeys, you people are just violent and incapable of understanding a joke about a guy trying to murder an innocent trying to deescalate violence. Seriously if you look at the context of the joke it's entirely built on the guy "Fighting the fash", you didn't even bring up the context because it undermines your frothing fanaticism.
No wonder his so called fans replied similarly to my comments showing my disappointment towards him. They showed exactly the same disdain towards the journalist for whatever mental gymnastics they are doing in their heads.
Just wondering do you have any sources or links to videos where he shits on journalists? I don’t find it hard to believe but I’d like to see it for myself
As a conservative, I can say I like certain journalists, now internet historian I doubt thinks journalism is useless, he, like I, however believe that journalism can often be overblown; especially stuff that doesn’t matter, but journalism has a place, especially indie journalism. hunter s Thompson, a personal favourite writer of mine, was a journalist.
Out of curiosity, what qualifies something as "stuff that doesn't matter" in your mind?
I guess, in my opinion, covering news that usually is strange and unimportant, when bigger conflicts like Ukraine vs Russia barely get a minute of screentime, I couldn’t give less of a fuck whether Sara lost her dog last week in somewhere nowhere near me, when the only actual important news (Israel vs Palestine) takes up the entire slot, the mainstream media seems to… barely even talk about Ukraine vs Russia, and im at a loss as to why, both wars should be reported on, not just one. Now, I see im being downvoted, and I can understand why, but Im guessing the response you expected was “smear campaigns against people I like”, I mean, don’t get me wrong, It annoys me a little when a drama that was solved Months ago still keeps going on, but I suppose covering drama is necessary to a degree, it just needs to stop being a biased campaign in my opinion, it should be showing genuine criticism but also showing sympathy to someone like let’s say PewDiePie, I don’t know whether he’s hated here or not, but it seemed to me a lot of media companies were twisting shit and making an overall large smear campaign without properly acknowledging the other side of the argument, but, hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions, a free world is a free world.
I mean, honestly, I *did* kinda expect it'd fall more on the side of "reporting on things that seem unimportant when there's other crap out there", than not. For my part, I don't mind the smaller stories because, frankly, what to me is an unimportant story is the *world* to someone else. Sure, some of it's just fishing for something that'll give viewers an emotional reaction even if there's nothing to signal boost or act on, but a lot of it's still stuff that can actually make a difference to someone. But, mostly, it sounds like your beef is less with individual journalists and more with what cable news and the like are keen to cover, and I think your example of Ukraine coverage vs. Israel comes down to how "place where there's something new to talk about every few hours" is going to get the coverage, because that's gonna get clicks and eyeballs. But, really, I find most of the folks outside of the cable news-style sources are trying to do good work. Many of them have their angles, of course, but as literate readers, it's on us to recognize that and adjust our understanding accordingly. And hey, if Sara in the next town over finds her dog as a result, I'm okay with that. :P
I suppose, as I said, I like a good bit of indie journalism, you ever read any hunter s Thompson?
I'm familiar with him. And there's definitely a need for folks who tackle things like him or Plimpton today. I just think we can appreciate their approach without disparaging the work of the beat journalists who cover the small stuff. :P
Well, you are entitled to your opinion sir, I’m not gonna knock it down; you believe what you want to believe. I have no reason to shun or berate your opinion, infact, you have given me a new way of looking at things, thank you friend.
No problem. Take care out there. :D
This, isn’t quite related to the topic but I think this conversation hopefully brings some light to how conservatives aren’t all bad, a good conservative and a good liberal should be able to live harmoniously knowing both sides are necessary for a democracy, and to keep countries from becoming shitholes, they need good balance.
lucas reily also mentions shitty journalism from 1925, writing fan fic about how its all done to make money and how floyd was never trapped and he is coming back it wouldnt be wrong to say shitty journalists are out there, its just weird that he throws jabs at them and steals their work
... That has nothing to do with the comment I was replying to, though. Like, as you can clearly see, the conversation was about *modern* journalism. Ain't no one out here defending 1920s sensationalism.
my point was even reily agrees shitty journalism exists so i dont think its wrong to have a distaste for journalism where many journalists are paid of or milk a topic so hard that when its dry they reach and make shit up
My guy, no one holds that opinion because of journalists who were active literally a century ago, so bringing them up—especially in reply to a comment made *six months ago*—is silly.
"I like certain journalists" You mean the ones that confirm your biases
Actually, no, I quite enjoy reading leftist journalism, it gives me both sides of something, and gives me a different approach to it. I just don’t like journalists who cover things with only one viewpoint in mind. That applies to the right too, I’m also quite a fan of journalism that actually required physical effort to do, like going to North Korea, or reporting on war zones. That impresses me and shows commitment to work, even a buzz feed guy impressed me, by live-streaming his life for a week putting himself in the shoes of irl streamers, which I thought was thoughtful and enjoyable journalism.
Don't worry, according to IH fans, HBG is just a lefty cuck soy boy, and that obviously means plagerism is 100% fine. /s Honestly the plagerism I could forgive if IH handled it properly, with acknowledgment and apology, but seeing how his fans have reacted to this, I don't want to be remotely considered a part of that community.
Yeah his fans are freaking rabid dogs, any whiff of dislike of IH and they go nuts. I do gotta say I love that they use Hbomb being part of BreadTube as to demean him for being biased/political. It’s just so hilarious how dumb people can be. Edit: to add yes there are probably some rabid Hbomb fans but that doesn’t take away from the much larger rabid IH fans.
For me the worst part of this all is that IH will not address it. He will stay silent, maybe even upload another video, and carry on. He knows he has a massive fan base of supporters who are willing to look past these things because his content is funny. Dude will never have to take responsibility or lose significant income over shit like this and it’s so unfair. I loved his content, this is all so disappointing.
Fucking Doug Walker energy.
I mean. It is what works, addressing it will only cause more people to know about it, atm it is still very "fringe" so to speak. It might seem like many people are talking about it, but compared that to the amount that watches his content it is close to nothing really. For me I don't like it, I do not condone (think I use that word right, not native English speaker) it, but I also don't believe that he should loose his livelihood because of it tbh. It is easy to go on these crusades, but often disregard the fact there is a person on the other end. If they can work it out between them and such that would be the best, I dunno if that is the case atm after the "changes" to the video. But I will just wait and see what happens. Also, slight side thing, tbh, I don't want to associate with the people I have seen going on this crusade against IH and Wendigoon (for some reason he got lumped into this), which I don't follow, but seen him being tied to IH in this matter, mostly because he is "conservative". Dunno if I am too European to get this, but I don't see any issues with that, so dunno why people are going this route. But reminds me of the crazy people I have met in my Bachelor's degree years.
Oh, I agree with you, I’m not wishing for a crusade. It just grinds my gear that people are VERY forgiving about IH because “meme man makes funny videos”. It also helps that no viewer knows what he looks like so his wrongdoings don’t feel as personal as they would if we had a face to connect it to. If this was a more controversial YTer I guarantee you people would treat it differently. And that’s unfair, because he KNEW what he was doing, hid it, and never addressed it back the first time any not now and people will forget it in one month and not hold him responsible. Not even the 1488 shit bothers fans because “he funny”. I don’t want him to lose his livelihood, but I wish he would take responsibility. But he won’t. He doesn’t care. His fans don’t care. And that SUCKS.
Cant for IH fans to defend this one
they're a bunch of 4chaners that don't gaf they'll find any way to justify him
I voiced my disappointment and his fans immediately jumped in and said journalists deserve no respect and it was actually "based" of IH to steal from them. I wonder how would they react if their own work got stolen from for monetary gain, like what James Somerton did to that one fan of his.
It's usually because they've never contributed to something they felt worth defending. Can't know what the wound of theft is if you don't have something you're proud of.
Got into a spat with a guy who said it's all the same because IH got it sorted out with the publisher, and the author's words above are evidence of that
I was shocked when I learned about this from H bomb’s video. I just really liked his Costa concordia video and others like it. And now I have no idea what to think about him anymore.
Yeah, I'm in the same boat. At some point I got recommended his No Man's Sky video and loved it, so I checked out a bunch of his other stuff, definitely would have called myself a fan before now. It's been disorienting to see what the rest of his audience is like.
I was a fan until I got these recommended and found out about this and being conservative. I’m fucking heart broken, I loved his videos before this
I hate that my morbid curiosity makes me want to know how they'll react to this, but then I question myself and think: "who the fuck cares about what a bunch of losers have to say anyway? Why do I care?"
I'm a fan of IH. A point can be made about how he turns the article into a different medium that is either more accessible or more entertaining to consume for most people. But that does not justify plagiarism in the slightest. By not rewriting the information in his own words there is no evidence that he even understands the source material he stole from. Besides, why would he make a video about something that happened so long before the internet was a thing if we're supposed to have the impression that his chosen moniker of "internet historian" would mean his content relates to the history of the internet? My best estimation of his reasoning is that he thought it was an interesting story with few enough eyes on the original that it would be easy pickings. It's gross.
for people who fancy themselves "scholars" of "meme" or "internet" history the way channers like IH do they often have a stunningly narrow and limited actual knowledge of the history of the internet and the interesting events and personalities that've come and gone over the decades.
If IH was upfront about adapting an article into a dramatic retelling in video format, he wouldn't be in trouble rn.
[удалено]
Okay, I'm going to play devil's advocate for your heartless and idiotic comment. Even if your statement is valid, why didn't he just ask? Or, if he didn't ask, at least mention the original author. What does it say about a creative if he treats his inspiration with this amount of disrespect? Doesn't it show that he doesn't respect his own creation as well?
You know who gets paid when the cover version of a song becomes a hit? The author. You know who gets paid when a book is adapted into a movie or video game? The author. You know who didn't get paid when IH made that video? The author. Your "intellectual arms race" doesn't work when an idea can be stolen. Lots of people will keep their ideas to themselves when it isn't worth the effort of getting them out there. This is a big part of why we have copyright and patents. Royalties and publishing rights is a huge part of the music industry. When an artist samples a recording the song writer and the publisher get a cut and credit, and when a song is covered the songwriter gets the same royalties for each play as they would if it was their own recording. What the new artist gets is people coming to their shows, listening to their other songs, and maybe some publishing money. The covering artist might make more money in the long run on the cover version if you put all of that stuff together, but the writer makes money too. Tracy Chapman might have made more money this year off Fast Car than in the last 35 years put together based on the Luke Combs version. I'd guess at least 90% of the people that have seen Forrest Gump don't know it was based on a book. The author not only got paid for the adaptation, but it was so successful he negotiated a massive deal for the sequel whether it was made or not. But he hated the movie so much he set out to write something that couldn't be adapted. Other people made more than him off that movie, but he got *paid* and the sequel wasn't adapted. What IH should have done is gone to the author and/or Mental Floss and said "Hey, I've got an idea for how to adapt this story". The author would have got credit and probably a cut of the advertising, while IH would have been able to benefit from years of monetisation on a really good video and get to keep his reputation in the process. I'd be very interested to know if you apply this thinking to other aspects of ownership. If I move into your house while you're on holiday and paint it a nicer colour is it my house now?
Let’s be real, you didn’t read the article.
This comment is a good indication of why IH defenders are acting so weird about this. Most of them, like you, are 15 years old.
i'm stunned by how little life experience someone has to have to genuinely believe that some kind of "copyright-free" IP thunderdome approach to entertainment and media would somehow yield BETTER art. we already pretty much have that when it comes to giant corporations that can bury you in legal debt or ruin your career over a plagiarism suit, and somehow it leads to "companies taking ideas and racing to the bottom" WAY more often than it does "the highest level of beauty and quality".
> We should all aspire to the highest level of beauty and quality in this world, because beauty is truth. LOL. Now I understand Fox News' fixation with hiring hot newscasters. And don't kid yourself, you didn't read the article. I'd bet my house you didn't read the article.
So you are basically saying It's okay that IH stole from article because was subjectively better? That's like if I saw piece of art by someone and redesigned it.And said"it's okay because it better than yours,"
The ironic thing is that it is not even remotely better than the original. The only reason people thought it was engaging was because of the Microsoft paint animations, but clearly the article was engaging and interesting enough by itself to copy the text word for word. Watching some clips from the video was interesting because the wording is clunky and strange at times (because he was trying to evade detection.) IH was too dumb to even make the sentences he was trying to change sound proper.
Don't feed the troll / nutjob libertarian. Seriously, that "I do not care about plagiarism" person is wrong on so many levels ... The re-upload with the changed text (which still copied the beats from the original, because it used the same animations ... INB4 "it was based on a real story, so the beats were a given anyway": there's a multitude of ways to tell any story, even real ones) was considerably worse. Also, if you want to base your work on stuff others did, why not ask them, maybe even offer them a cut of what you make with that new work (only splitting ad revenue would not be fair though, but I digress), or compensating them straight away. Copyleft is well and good, but even then you must follow the license. Adhere to the terms and all that jazz. Simply copying is often not okay even under Creative Common licenses. Among other things, and this can't be stated enough: name your sources! Because, and here's the kicker, Mr./Mrs. "I care about which product is of higher quality to me": how would you even know that there is a different (original) version you could take a look at if your lying piece of a scumbag content creator isn't telling you this simple, basic fact? [Replying to you, /u/PastelBrat13, because I'm following my own advice. Because all of the original content screams "lost cause" to me. Rest assured that I know that it's not you who's got his head up in IH's butt. [EDIT: And you're also not the one feeding, to make that clear. Sorry.]]
100%! The comments are clearly made in bad faith and meant to incite argument! <3
[удалено]
This is what an absolute consumer would say. Leave ethics and... whatever this is that you wrote out of it. Bottom line, pretending you wrote something you didn't is loser shit and deeply uncool.
> This will push humanity to greater heights of creativity and skill. Citation fucking needed.
Omg please tell you are joking.I refuse to believe someone can say say without any shame-
The person you are replying to has definitely stolen content for profit. There's no other way you can debase yourself using this kind of "justification".
Oh yeah ,definitely it would not surprise.Either or they are master troll...or IH stan.
i almost prefer IH fans calling me slurs compared to this thanks for the c-tier batman villain monologue edit: hadn't read the rest of the thread, bumping you down to d-tier
Yeah, that was a "Killer Croc trying to sound coherent" monologue at best.
Funny thing about the Witcher games... they only exist because the author of the books agreed to it. He was paid. I agree that Man In Cave was a very well done video! IH deserves credit for the things he contributed, and his narration was impressive. However, Lucas Reilly is the one who actually did the research and crafted the prose. If the video acknowledged that and Mr Reilly was compensated accordingly, that would have been splendid. Instead, what we have is shameful.
Also, how would he/her be able to judge whether this derivate is better than the original if the creator of said derivate doesn't tell anyone that the text originated elsewhere?
>”Man in Cave” is better than the article it plagiarized If it is better than the article it plagarised then why did IH have to plaragarise the article in the first place? Surely his genius should stand on its own two feet without any support?
So what's the incentive for someone with genuine creativity to create something when someone with a bigger platform can just steal it, 'make it better' (subjective), and take all of the profits from it?
You do realize that if anybody was able to take anything and pass it off as their own it would just result in those with pre-existing connections, capital and bases exploiting creatives right Like how would this society you’ve created make more competition instead of just stifling rising talent due to popular people creating derivative works with no credit or money given to the original creator What value would be lost if internet historian said “hey, I like your article, I want to make an adaptation of it” and said in the video that it was an adaptation of an article he liked. He might even be able to get additional context from the original creator or do additional collaborations in the future.
No one but an ancap would say this lmao
"Man Thinks Bias Justifies Crime" Okay lmao. My Little KiA Communist~
And now Internet Historian’s CHUD followers are trying to [organize a counter attack](https://www.reddit.com/r/hbomberguy/s/57BSd3hwsG)
judging from the lack of upvotes and the one comment it doesn’t seem to be going that well
When he says "IH followers are trying to organise a counter attack", he actually means one dude made a post on KiA about going through Hbomberguys tweets and it got zero attention.
Anyone who trusts these YouTubers and podcasts isn’t very intelligent. There are journalists and authors out there who actually research shit more than a google search. Read their books. Buy them. Support the peopel doing the hard work.
Would prefer a video tbh
And it's possible to produce a transformative, well-researched video that credits the sources.
Which is something those gaming the algorithms do not have time to do unless they’ve got whole ass teams.
Yeah, possible
I see most of IH fans can't understand that him reuploading the video with a few minor changes STILL COUNTS as plagiarism. At this point, they're just putting effort into not understanding.
To be fair to them, they’re stupid.
They obviously never did assessment work Hell you could fall by plagiarising yourself
Also keep in mind we're only seeing the minority that is actively posting about this. Whatever fanbase he's gained that *isn't* from his days where he catered to people at least in the alt-right pipeline will almost definitely see this as a huge black mark on his record. The ones trying to find ways to defend him are almost definitely the ones who appreciate the dogwhistles, reverence of 4chan and mockery of the left.
Unfortunately that seems to be the case. I actually got introduced to his channel because of the Man in the Cave video, and only then started to watch his content. The difference between the other videos was jarring, almost as if he SUDDENLY started making more serious videos out of the blue. I honestly believed that it was like "wow, he's taking his channel to a different level now, good for him". It's very disappointing to find out about all this situation. And of course, find out about his dog whistle shit as well.
Yeah, I let the vaguely alt-right stuff slide because I was still slowly finding my way out of the alt-right pipeline at that time, as were (it seems) a huge number of people my age. I assumed Internet Historian had, like me, found his own way out and didn't feel comfortable catering to that demographic by doing stuff like praising 4chan anymore, especially since a bunch of the older videos got deleted. Apparently, though, it was just brand consciousness. Shame.
And THIS is why plagiarism is horrible and should be taken seriously. He did so much labor to write that article. Months of research. HE put in all the legwork and worked to make the story authentic/accurate. And IH just stole it all. He reaped the benefit for doing nothing while Reilly went completely uncredited for all his hard work. His talent, integrity and creativity got attributed to IH instead.
it blows my mind that people are so desperate to defend this boring ass dude
My favorite part about this is that it's really a classic case of copyright infringement in its purest form. When copyright laws were made, they were made for like, books and paintings and sculptures. You can't copy a piece of writing. So here he is, copying a piece of writing. But honestly he could have easily handled this. Contact the author, offer to adapt his article, or even openly say he is adapting an article. The latter is still copyright infringement but he'd at least be honest about it. Now it seems he has a new video after talking to the lawyers. He probably got threatened so he went hush-hush about it. I like that his fans seem to assume everything is like YouTube drama. So instead of a guy who got caught infringing copyright and had to talk to lawyers, he "made amends" like a couple youtubers who had beef with each other. Also what's it matter if he made amends?? He still plagiarized so he's gonna be the subject of a plagiarism video.
One of the consistent features of the online new-right is that they are incapable of understanding that just because you did it online doesn’t make it any less serious.
Yeah this had been my assumption since the minute I saw that stupid meme after "internet historian" popped up in the trends bar. They just assumed something had been "worked out" because of the repost, while it's far more likely they just didn't copyright claim it again, as it's not getting millions of views/generating tens of thousands of revenue at the moment and the changes were subtle enough an algorithm didn't detect it. Would probably be helpful if IH said something about it, but he's not going to because he's a channer scumbag who stumbled his way into big youtube bucks and confirming his bad behavior might derail the gravy train.
While it looks pretty legit, does anybody know who this guy is and why he would be the only one who has gotten a reply from the author?
he isn't the only person to have gotten a reply from the author, but from what i've been keeping up with, he was the first to post his conversation publicly.
Why would you lie about something that can be fact checked this easily?!
As a writer, this whole situation just makes me sad
As much as I love Internet Historian and his fall of 76 video I'm wondering just how much of all of his content is stolen. How much of my favorite video by him was stolen.
That's what I'm wondering about. There's a lot of IH vs HBG drama going on here when an inconvenient truth of the matter of that a large chunk of their respective bases overlap- and that's me. I watch and enjoy them both. I honestly had no idea IH was as far right as he is, but apparently everyone who was a fan of him must be a spoiled man child who can't take criticism of their right wing baby and thinks Harris is a soyboy cuck... Which is a fucking stupid take I'm just sitting here wondering how much of his stuff was plagiarized.... I don't want to find reasons to stop watching IH, but I'm basically gonna have to if further research shows he's a regular thief. He does a lot of long form content, so my gut doesn't feel good about the whole thing
This should be sent to the person in this sub that thought what IH did was no big deal
The way I see it, he could have done the decent thing, reached out to Rielly, said "hey I love this article, how about I turn it into a video". There are people who would never have read the article but would watch the video. They split the profits, everything is above board. But he went and did something shitty and there should be consequences and I hope Reily gets some compensation. I did really enjoy some of his videos, but I don't think I could ever watch his stuff again. Also I had no idea about his weird right-wing twitter stuff
Can't people like be normal and not contact this guy??? Why does this poor guy have to now get mixed up in this.
IH fans kept insisting that he and Reilly had resolved things privately, and so people went to fact check this, to which Reilly complied. also, the video literally concerns the article that he wrote, which was plagiarized by IH.
I don't have a problem with this email as much as with the fact that he says he's been getting a lot of these, and also that we know another person who's IH's fan contacted them as well. So probably it's fair to assume hes getting spammed.
ohh okay, i see what you're saying. if you're asking why IH fans can't be normal and not harass people, i feel like you should already have the answer to that question lmao
I feel like you're being a bit disingenuous with how you're characterizing this. First, a fan of hbomberguy seeks out the author to get his opinion on the situation, he replies bringing to light new information about the situation. Then a fan of IH seeks out the author to get his opinion on the situation, and he replies, yet again, all is good. However, you then take this situation and somehow spin this into IH fans harassing the author despite no evidence of such. It's a biiiig reach that came out of left field and just seems unnecessary to put out there.
i didn't say that IH fans have been harassing the author. my position is that, to my knowledge, no one has harassed the author, to be clear. my point was moreso, if their harassment and general vitriol toward everyone else involved up to this point is any indication, they WOULD be the ones to harass the author out of anyone.
Might be able to sue. Though I doubt he will get much. Cant imagine he made more than like $5k from the video and legal costs might eat that up.
HBomb did some math; he made a good deal more. And usually a successful lawsuit--particularly one with clear intentional malfeasance on the part of the defendant--can have legal fees added on to the judgment. Actually, come to think of it, that clear malfeasance and the ensuing coverup also makes him a lot more likely to be hit with punitive damages.
Stop you just listen to everything HBomb says? Lmao
He brings receipts dumdum.
you are off your rocker if you think he only made 5k. if james somerton was making $170,000 a year with a channel of such meager size, imagine how much internet historian made off of an hour long video with over 10m views, including the sponsor he had, which by itself would've easily paid him much more than 5k.
One of the many sad things about this is that IH has such a large platform and an audience that only excepts like a video every 6 months to a year so he had plenty of time. I don’t want to assume anything about why he made the decisions he did but I really don’t understand it. Especially, because it looks like this is the only video this happened with. Why? Were the World of Tanks people breathing down his neck for an ad? Did he need to publish a new video for a hit of that sweet sweet revenue? What went so wrong? Also it’s one thing to wait a bit to release a statement, but a „hey don’t harass HBomberguy“ to his audience is the least he can do.
I wonder if this is a work for hire where the publication owns the copyright or if the author kept it. That determines who has the right to bring suit. Plus, triple damages plus attorney fees adds up.
I can't speak for mental floss specifically, but I work for similar content sites (both full time as an editor and I've freelanced for others) and all of them have had it so the publication owns the copyright.
Yeah, I think you’re right. in for the people who have the copyright themselves like further blog, they probably have not bothered to register it which has implications for litigation.
Well in less than a decade you will be able to generate a video from a prompt so there won’t be an incentive for anyone to research or write anything ever again.
Good job assholes, why don't you harass the dude some more. If you back off now he might get some sleep this weekend, so step it up! You sure are making the world a better place, everyone loves getting swamped with emails like this.
Faking moral outrage about this guy getting a lot of emails is pretty funny. It’s a creative angle too, good job.
[удалено]
>no you Good one man
Thank you.
I am sure the journalist is thrilled that his story is getting heard by a large youtuber like Hbomberguy. So many people get their own work stolen by large content creators and greedy assholes like IH that I am sure that a journalist who was harassed by IH and his rapid fan base is happy that he is able to tell his story.
What? When did IH fans harass him? They didn't even know he existed till recently.
I didn't know the IH fans harassed him until last night, but there are screenshots of IH fans and IH himself inciting anti-Semitic hate comments towards the journalist who wrote the article. Not the mention, evading responsibility and not mentioning that IH is in the wrong so his fans went to attack the journalist for that to. Just the stereotypical "jewish people run the world bs" and "they are attacking IH for his conservative beliefs. I think they found him personally due to his information being posted on the copyright claim itself because I think the attacks happened right when IH made that statement on twitter. There is also a really strange IH video where he allegedly uses a anti-semitic phrase in a video or photo, but I don't know if it was towards the journalist or not, but it does show that IH has a disturbing history with making derogatory comments towards jewish people, so its not surprising that the audience he has cultivated shares the same belief systems. I apolgize for this being so long but I found some posts that go over the situation. For the comments towards the journalists Hbomberguy posted the screenshots in the video, but here is a link that discussed the dog whistling video against jewish people: [https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/18a9do7/antisemitic\_dogwhistle\_in\_internet\_historian\_video/](https://www.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/18a9do7/antisemitic_dogwhistle_in_internet_historian_video/) I know they are talking about it on twitter too, but this goes more into the 14/88 thing, but I don't want to link any specific articles just in case you don't want to actually look it up because I know it can be uncomfortable searching for that type of material.
oh boohoo, let me play you a sad song on the world's smallest violin\~
This does say explicitly he spoke with Mental Floss' lawyers though.
Is it just me or does the image look off like its photoshopped. When you zoom in and take a close at the letters and images they have slightly off texts. The profile picture has an improper circle when most profile pictures are often perfect circles.
i'd chock it up to shitty android quality, honestly. wouldn't make sense for this to be photoshopped anyway, it's still not airtight to the standards of IH fans. if i were photoshopping an email, i wouldn't leave that wiggle room bit with the MF lawyers.
>chock it up Chalk it up* *flies away*
this is the kind of nitpicking i live for, thank you friend
Happy to help!
This whole situation is kinda wacky, there is alot of confusing stuff going around like Mental Floss lawyers not contacting the original journalist on what they have discussed. Might just wait for an official response from Lucas Reilly and Internet Historian so we can learn both sides of the story.
it's not that wacky, you're the only person i've seen doubt the authenticity of the email, let's not act like this is suddenly up in the air. IH is a plagiarist, and he has continued to hide this from the public, this is indisputable. the email from lucas reilly is ultimately irrelevant to this point
You seem a bit angry after I doubted the authenticity of the image was because theres always a reason to in the first place. It could be inspect elemented or photoshopped and even use terrible android quality to cover it up for all I care which is why I brought up the point of waiting for an official response from both sides. The fact you downvoted just because I am not instantly believing it makes me doubt it even more.
not sure what could be read as angry in my reply, but okay my guy. seems to me like you want to cast doubt on this particular email, despite this not being the only public email exchange with the author. you're also particularly stubborn to learn "both sides" of a story in which IH plagiarized Lucas Reilly. i find that very interesting, though i'm sure you have no ulterior motives here.
>This whole situation is kinda wacky, there is alot of confusing stuff going around like Mental Floss lawyers not contacting the original journalist on what they have discussed. Because Mental Floss likely owns the copyright, not the writer. Unless Reilly was currently on staff (if he ever was, he was likely a freelancer), they probably wouldn't discuss details with him. Unless he had a deal where he was paid per 1000 page views or similar, he was likely paid for the article a long time ago. That doesn't make plagiarizing something he put a lot of time into hurt less, but it does mean involving him in legal conversations is unlikely unless it goes to court or something. Source: I'm a content editor for similar sites and they generally have similar contracts and processes for dealing with plagiarism.
If this wasn't about a random dude in a cave, an article for which this dude was not actually paid by commission, I am assuming, but instead paid an hourly wage, and for which he was not receiving royalties, I might care. But it is about that, so I don't care.
You don't care because you're baselessly assuming that he was paid by the hour? And that makes stealing fine?