YouTube's Fine Bros. Attempt to Trademark Reactions

[Skoone]

I'd like to think that Fine Bros will suffer a huge drop in their fanbase, but then I remember that their viewers probably don't know or care about what Fine Bros does.

... Ahem... Viewers like me? People of all ages and demographics watch that channel.

I never subscribed to them (I don't subscribe, really, I just use my current YouTube channel to watch and listen to music. I don't even "like" videos most of the time unless really really like it).

Also... They've already lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers. That alone is worth a huge loss in profit... So, what exactly are you on about, sir? Did you read my OP? It took me 20 minutes.

I found their content to be boring long time ago. Most of their videos don't seem to be even reaction videos anymore and even if they react to something then it is reaction to something that I really don't care about. It just got boring.

[Constaniana]

Fuck them.



Who cares?

Giving people monopolies on ideas is outrageously stupid.

Monopolies in general are bullshit that corrupts the free market by stifling competition. YouTube has a monopoly thereby they can get away with shutting down channels unfairly. (See what happened to I Hate Everything)

That was just Daddy Derek getting his furry revenge.

[The Rich Port]

Yes... They momentarily owned the concepts of children and elderly people reacting to things.

Nope. Fuck this. I'm done. I cannot keep explaining to you that this is not how trademark works only for you to ignore it every time and carry on making snide insinuations about what I must not know and what I must want and believe, not without getting banned.

Well, Iffy, maybe you're not getting your meaning across.

I already know what trademarks are... Doesn't make what they did any less under-handed.

You've yet to explain it to me in a way I understand, and I've asked you multiple times to clarify, and you did so in unhelpful ways.

If it were so easy, more people would probably understand why they did this and why it isn't necessarily unreasonable... And yet, even a lawyer thinks it's unreasonable and abusive of the law to trademark those kinds of things.

Whether the fault lies in the Fine Bros. or trademark law is what's in question, and the answer is not easy, because, while trademark law may be flawed, the Fine Bros. chose to pre-emptively abuse it to protect themselves from... Abuse of their... Trademark... Which is... The elderly reacting to something.

OK... So, the word "whopper" is trademarked. I get it. That's reasonable... Somewhat. They don't want other burger restaurants calling their burger a "whopper".

"Whopper" isn't a word that's commonly used these days anyway. Can't remember the last time someone said "whopper" outside of the context of Burger King. Also... Reaction videos aren't a hamburger. They're sandwiches, and a sandwich is a widely ubiquitous term and concept, to the point that you can't trademark the word "sandwich" as it would be incredibly problematic and pretentious.

... What's your point? I still don't get it.

[Jochistan]

What made them think this was a sensible thing to do?

[The Orson Empire]

What made them think this was a sensible thing to do?

Greed.

[The Rich Port]

What made them think this was a sensible thing to do?

Greed.

Ifreann has by far been the only one to think this is at all reasonable.

Maybe you can ask him why because he can't get through to me.

[Camelza]

That's rather nonsensical. I understand greed, but patent 'reaction videos'?
They weren't even the first to think of that concept; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKC56jeWKdw

Nevertheless, I do not feel anger, or anything of the short. They're not criminals.

[HUElavia]

YouTube is meant for people to post whatever they want (within reason) and that includes Reaction Videos. I'm very dissapointed to see they tried to infringe on a right that people have on YouTube. Shame on them.

[Frank Zipper]

Patents and trademarks are different things.

They are not trying to trademark reactions, or reaction videos. They are trying to trademark youtube video series with the title format "X react". It is equivalent to the producers of the format "America's Next Top Model" trademarking 'America's Next Top' because they want to produce other series like "America's Next Top Chef" or "America's Next Top Wrestler".

Even if they had managed to trademark the word react, other people would still be able to create reaction videos, and even use the word react in their titles - just not in the form 'X react' or anything too similar to that.

[The Rich Port]

Patents and trademarks are different things.

They are not trying to trademark reactions, or reaction videos. They are trying to trademark youtube video series with the title format "X react". It is equivalent to the producers of the format "America's Next Top Model" trademarking 'America's Next Top' because they want to produce other series like "America's Next Top Chef" or "America's Next Top Wrestler".

Even if they had managed to trademark the word react, other people would still be able to create reaction videos, and even use the word react in their titles - just not in the form 'X react' or anything too similar to that.

... And what's wrong with that?

They're words, and "X Reacts To" is a far more common parlance and use of phrase than "American's Next Top X" anyway.

Admittedly, it would make sense for them to protect such an asinine and horrible idea as a "reality TV" series from knock-offs. God knows what horrible things they could come up with that are somehow of a lower quality than an already long-running fake reality show.

Also, relevant! http://fox43.com/2015/02/25/former-amer ... -homicide/

That's rather nonsensical. I understand greed, but patent 'reaction videos'?
They weren't even the first to think of that concept; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKC56jeWKdw

Nevertheless, I do not feel anger, or anything of the short. They're not criminals.

Well to be fair they're not trying to patent it, they're trying to trademark it.

A sort of different thing, but a greedy and ridiculous thing regardless, as other trademarking efforts have shown, along with patent and copyright efforts.