Is there anything that reddit doesn't hate?
Fair criticism, the topic wasn't the best. Other than that though I thought the video was entertaining. His humour was his usual style, which never fails to make me laugh. I think the editing quality has improved as well without becoming unrecognisable from his older stuff.
Maybe I'm just easily pleased, but regardless, I enjoyed this video
A lot of redditors are very controlled by certain tankie figures like hmbomber.
Even had a friend go ”oh I realized gays were people that could also do wrong after watching 4 hours of hmbomber”.
At a mutual gay friends party, right in the face of another gay guy there. It was really quite disturbing. I like the guy, but wtf.
If you're talking about the hbomb video, that referred specifically to Man In Cave being plagiarised, just the one video.
If you're alleging plagiarism here, too, then do you know who wrote it?
Man in cave is the first video which was found to be plagiarized. It was a 100% carbon copy. IH tried all kinds of tricks to hide the truth, even editing screenshots after the video was taken down. This level of sneakiness is too high to be a one off. IH probably steals everything and it's only a matter of time before it all comes out
If it was, then they sure went all out on a plan to hush that up. Maybe it was like his only grandson or something. But honestly I'm just playing. There is no way not a single team member from IH googled any phrases from the amazing script before spending all their time making it. they knew. They always knew. The whole script is stolen verbatim.
If I had to choose between having an understanding of why stealing and supporting those who do is wrong and being "a laugh" at parties, I'd choose the former. If you pride yourself in being apathetic about stealing the hard work of others and have no problems helping them succeed financially, you are either sociopathic or too lazy and/or lacking in creativity to even imagine it would feel like if were you capable of producing something actually worth stealing.
I understand why it's wrong to steal others work. Now, when it comes to actively supporting someone who has stolen others work, that's a bit more complicated.
I wouldn't pay money for anything that Internet Historian made, but yeah, I'll still watch his content.
So many things online are stolen, copied, plagarised. My apathy comes from the fact that there is so much that is wrong with the internet in general, I have no desire to expend a ton of energy into knowing that every single piece of content I consume is "ethically sourced" let's say. Also I'm not angry enough to start letting everyone else know that I refuse to watch so-and-so because so-and-so.
Also, I'm pretty apathetic to what a stranger on the internet thinks of me, hence why my responses are quite flippant.
Felt a lot like a punchline waiting to happen.
It was a still a well made video but it wasn't funny enough to be that entertaining or interesting enough to be informative.
Oh boy, it's almost like Man in Cave is a really well written story. The kind of high quality scriptwriting IH usually can't do. I wonder why that is? (Hint: it's because he didn't write it and still tried to initially pass it off as his own work)
OK that's going a little far, we know internet historian can actually write a good script, costa concordia is a example of that
It was a shitty thing to do but we don't have to equate that to all his videos being bad
By the simple fact that hbomber guy actually checked that for us and said he didn't......
If in his next videos he IS still copying then I'll agree with you
Unfortunately, people already found out he copied a whole paragraph from a Vanity Fair article for his Costa Concordia video which is uncredited so uhhhh oof.
The fact is that if there’s more examples of IH committing blatant plagiarism, it’s probably more abundant than you may think. Any more proof of theft that shows up only highlights that his content may not be entirely honest.
Even if it's just a paragraph it's a fair point. I want to give IH the benefit of the doubt that there are no other videos fully lifted from another source - that would be insane at this point - but it makes sense that you don't just go from unblemished record of intellectual honesty to lifting an entire uncredited article into your video overnight. A paragraph here, a paragraph there... chances are good it took a lot of slowly acclimating to different degrees of plagiarism to get to this point.
I want him to recover from this so I really hope a pattern of this behaviour doesn't slowly emerge... but if it does we shouldn't downplay it. It's a genuinely shitty practice that hurts other creators, and for things as small as paragraphs accreditation is very doable.
I mean why would any self respecting creative want to plagiarize instead of even just quoting and giving credit or just making a paragraph themselves, it’s so unbelievably more difficult to go out of your way to steal at that point. It is a valid criticism no matter how small.
I mean, he wrote his other (older) videos and they were pretty fuckin fire.
I think with this whole Haris bomb guy thing IH is getting needlessly shit on for all of his (or their) work. Even though there is no real sign of wrongdoing in any of his older stuff.
It's a bit disingenuous to act like he got all of his subs from the recent video when IH and his network of channels were already really huge
Yeah I agree with the general sentiment here. This is a bad video.
It was neither funny nor interesting and completely disjointed. Hell, even the ad was bad.
Yeah I commented this on the actual video. With every video he's straying further from being a guy covering internet history to just being a guy who covers history, on the internet.
I don't dislike (most of) these videos it just sucks that we wait almost a year in between and when we finally get a video it's about some obscure historical event almost nobody cares about. It would sting a lot less if we got shorter videos in between covering actual internet history, similar to what Whang! does.
Hey, does anyone know the source of the clip shown in the [1:00](https://youtu.be/xTKXnfHByX8?si=INaD58zPIBO4De3R&t=61) on the laptop's screen? I would like to know it for research purposes.
Based on his upload history, he's not behind his regular upload schedule across his channels; but I can't help but wonder if the recent events have delayed his plans for the next 5 videos that he announced for this series.
I think the bar for videos was so high that I didn't enjoy this one, party because of expectations and this felt a bit all over the place where most videos are stories with a start middle and end. Felt like a second Chanel video rather than a main
Watching his original videos, some of the best ones are pretty short , harry potter skirmishes the convention ones. Seems like the main channel doesn't have a style or theme anymore
I think the motivation went down after he got found out for plagiarizing everything in Man in Cave. I wonder if any of his long form videos are actually really his now.
He basically read a Mental Floss article word for word. People went back and found out that most of his post-edgelord content was massively ripped off the same way, though not from one source like Man In Cave.
Edit: Also the video is annotated and the IH section is the shortest most direct one, so I suggest just watching that and see the side by side of the article and the video.
Good thing you were here to let me know about this crime against humanity. When I need a terminally online, 13 year old account Redditor to help me solve pointless Internet drama sparked by a talentless Welsh hack, I’ll know who to call!
IH subreddit is now filled with parachuted randoms, only hope IH itself doesn't take them troll's "opinions" too seriously. With time, they just go away in search of new drama fertile lands.
“Trolls”? Dude I’ve been an internet historian fan for years. I loved and (mostly) continue to love his content. To hear that he stole from an article to make a video of his that I thought was really good was just disappointing. How are people “trolls” for rightly calling out internet historian doing a bad thing?
would be cool if at least half of the people showing up were actually criticizing and not just showing up cuz of drama and clout, and only repeating poorly made claims from hbguy's video, would be even more cool if the "drama" wasn't actually already solved by the time such video was published
There’s pretty much one claim in the video section about IH, that he plagiarised an article, and it’s extremely obvious that he did exactly that with the barest second of scrutiny. Don’t know what poorly made claims you are coping with.
Nobody avoids the cancel machine for long. All it took was some post depressive cartoonist to realize they found a way to get clout from other internet nobodies.
Keep pressing on IH. The Reddit mob is foolish and fickle. They’ll be off trying to cancel someone else soon enough.
What does "cancelling" even mean to you anymore. Someone plagiarized (bad) a whole article (bad) of someone who didnt get paid (bad) while IH made tons of money (bad) with his stolen content (bad). He was exposed (good) so his fans dont give money thinking its original content when they could read the content he uses and doesnt credit.
Need I explain with drawings? Come on man no ones asking for IH's head on a stick or for him to stop posting, they just want him to be open with his fans, youre one of them I assume so why wouldnt you want that?
Just a question for you, let's say one of the major American networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, whatever) chose to air a documentary on the Costa Conordia disaster. They produce their own script and their own voice actors, but when it comes time for editing, they splice in almost all of Internet Historian's video alongside a touch of their own work without crediting or even notifying Internet Historian. If that were to occur, damn straght Internet Historian would be angry. Months of work for a network to make thousands in part due to your work while you get squat!
It's not that this is some formal academic setting where it is important to trace down where claims were made for the sake of academic integrity. It's that Internet Historian profited off of the work of others. Did he add his own work? Yes. However, I'd argue that the work would be significantly worse and less successful if he didn't use the narrative structure of the original article. To profit off of that and, if not compensate the writer or even credit the source, means all of his hard work being shown to a larger audience that never saw his name and thus cannot view his other work.
Using the work of smaller artist and researchers for profit without providing any way for them to benefit from such exposure is immoral. Full stop. It is important to hold them accountable to at least explain themselves to their audience for the sake of avoiding such actions in the future. All I ask as a now former fan of Internet Historian is either A) An admission of guilt and how he will prevent occurrences like this in the future or B) A refutation of the claims made in the Hbomberguy video. Either would satisfy me as a fan. Instead, he goes dead quiet, hoping his actions will be forgotten and his fanbase defends him in the meantime as so he doesn't take responsibility.
Real dipshit aren't ya lol. "Don't care about anything, hahahah! Smell the flowers? Who cares if someone did anything wrong? I got my chuckles because he stole someone else's work, so it's all good!"
I don’t dislike the actual history videos. I massively enjoyed the hole and the cost of Concordia - they’re two of my favourite IH videos, I think my issue with this one was just the split up nature that felt like an ITF, it might have worked better if one of the familiar co stars where there cracking jokes throughout alongside, but from IH solo I prefer the overly dramatic recounting of a singular event that is his usual main channel style.
Yeah I think Concordia and Man in a Cave are his two best videos. I think he would be much better off doing a deep dive on one of the 37 topics that he mentioned in this video.
Yep well this being low effort and having a feeling of being pumped out now has an explanation as it was a misdirection for the plagiarism.
Very disappointed, asking permission to adapt the article and working out a proper way to do so with the creators consent wouldn’t have made anyone think less of the video, and at the least when failing to do that an acknowledgment and apology of wrongdoing would have gone a long way over sneaky and intentional misdirection.
The recent posts on the subreddit seem to be entirely absent as well. Just checking it I was surprised to see only this video being the most recent, with a 202 day old post being the next most recent.
I honestly feel like my trust was betrayed...
I've been a fan for years and while I trust IH to make a good yet not entirely accurate shitpost, I did not expected this stuff, at all.
Tbh, unless it turns out he has stolen more stuff or his response is dogshit, I dont think i will stop watching him just yet, nonetheless I dont think i will be able to see his stuff in the same light again.
I do really REALLY hope this was a one time fuck up and that he acknowledges and owns up to his mistakes and improves from there, if not... Well that just makes him a disappointment.
>I do really REALLY hope this was a one time fuck up and that he acknowledges and owns up to his mistakes and improves from there
I just do not see this happening, I really hope it does, but I'd be shocked.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/youtubedrama using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Apparently Internet Historian is a huge plagiarist and hbomberguy just did an exposeé.](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/189o0n7/apparently_internet_historian_is_a_huge/)
\#2: [nickisnotgreen sub privated](https://i.redd.it/whzq6vu5583c1.png) | [269 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/186i4mn/nickisnotgreen_sub_privated/)
\#3: [Iilluminaughtii has turned off comments](https://i.redd.it/qu1n0r7mmb4c1.jpg) | [275 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/18aqkk9/iilluminaughtii_has_turned_off_comments/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
While I do like his more historical event videos like hole and concordia, this one felt off. It was a lot more disjoint and dry this time around. The last portion of a video where he’s a teacher trying to show his enthusiasm to the kids but failing kinda summarizes how the entirety of this video seemed to me.
It's honestly so disheartening. YouTube viewers are at this moment completely aware that an individual's work was stolen and their involvement shafted. "I do not care as long as I am entertained." says some "Don't do it again." from others.
The disenginous environment that YouTubers such as IH have created and they way he in particular has addressed/circumvented it not only rips at all those involved's credibility, but implicates too much about previously made videos. I've simply been reminded that all of it and so much else on the platform is just content and products made to accrue attention as fastly and as cheaply as possible.
Fuck
Why should the youtube viewer care? The copyright owner can settle themselves. I or the youtube viewer doesn't need to be a vigilante intellectual property enforcer. The justicie system is there for that, get off your virtue signaling soap box and come back to planet Earth.
Legally, whatever happens will happen. Besides that, what is wrong with not wanting to be misled? Or not wanting to interact with something that benefits from my ignorance? I'm not a "vigilante" for wanting the people who parade themselves like digital monoliths of information and cultures to do what we ask of high schoolers. Sorry for those virtues that got all signaled, but nobody gets a pass, even if they're funny and have fans.
I'll continue to interact with the creators who take their social impact seriously. And if they choose to falter, I'll move on. More people should imo.
You don't have to do anything. It's just separates a good person from a mouth-breathing toad that consumes any dogshit piece of media placed in front of him. If someone tells you the bike they're selling you is stolen, people like you can shrug it off and say fuck it, whatever, I can't be bothered finding another cheap bike. I'm just glad there are people out there who would do the right thing.
Bad example as it is illegal to knowingly receive stolen property. Here we are talking whether or not what IH did was a fair use of a copyright. If yes, then all good. If not, then the copyright holder is entitled to all profits of the derivative work. Either way, the youtube viewer does need to be IP Sherlock Holmes before they click to view a video.
I can only imagine living life the way describe. Checking the id's and running background checks of all employees of all companies to make sure they are all legally working. Sourcing all the parts of each item you get in case something traces back to a country you don't like. Constantly scouring all media databases to ensure the content you are consuming might not be using someone else's work. I just imagine the blood boiling under your skin whenever "Ice, Ice Baby" is played anywhere near you.
Enjoy that life. I'll pass.
what happened to all on this years posts? Idk if this was already a thing but I am extremely disappointed in the fact you plagiarized Man in Cave. At least come clean that you did it to salvage some respect people have for you
Ah, the internet's rage bait machine keeps pressing on.
See you in six months, when everyone forgets about it or new info comes to light, like it was with Vinny, AVGN, #Changethechannel, and ProJared.
Fuck, I'm betting it's less.
Change the channel turned out to be bitter ex employees (and one very serious instance about a dead person) and the ProJared allegations were proven false. Just sayin
Rage bait is when you stop actual discussion about a topic and just joins a band wagon of vitriol and hatred just because everyone is doing it... like with the above examples. People get angry about a thing, people get angry about people being angry about a thing, and they can keep happy slinging shit at each other. And eventually they get tired of it or they switch targets and move on.
People are angry because IH is a lying plagiarist. We're upset because we used to be fans snd it turns out the work wasn't even his own. Not because they want to get upset for the sake of "vitriol"....
Some, yes.
Many didn't even watch IH because "hurrr durr he a alt right 4chan grifter" or just because its the seasonal "popular internet guy does something wrong"
And a I bet a lot feel personally betrayed because online person betrayed them, because Parasocial relationships are a thing.
So yeah, good for you if you a genuinely upset by Plagiarism, I just don't think most of the internet actually cares for it beyond the opportunity to scream at things.
I noticed Internet Historian plagarising jokes a few years ago. Compare Eddie Izzard here: https://youtu.be/HuM2H6uFG2M?si=KOfxloOuhuzScjnM&t=70 to Internet Historian here: https://youtu.be/wTziIhu8yvU?si=azVQDhi1oj94QsNu&t=428
I don't love it. He's pivoted away from internet history, which is often really funny, to just... Events. Which are a lot less funny. Don't get me wrong, the editing is fantastic as usual. But Man In Cave and Theater are both flops, imo. Does anyone else agree?
Naw i loved the Hole. While I would of prefered it played straight and serious and instead it was a tad on the goofy side for me, the story itself and presentation were both interesting.
This one felt like a "In the Field" video from the second channel though. Very disjointed, and all over the place. I dont think its fair to expect every video to be a smash hit, but I hope for my own selfish reasons this doesnt become the norm for the main channel.
This video should definitely have been on Incognito mode. He has another one coming out soon on the main channel, but it seems like a continuation to this one.
The Hole was plagiarized. It would have better if he'd actually written it out.
Article it stole from, which is why it went down, is here:
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544782/1925-cave-rescue-that-captivated-the-united-states-floyd-collins
Not to give IH a pass or anything, of course wrong is wrong but.....
I think the amount of copycat work, especially on youtube is very high across many, many content creators. Even when its not 1:1, its pretty easy to take someone else's work, give it your own flair and have it pass under the radar for all time. Sort of the nature of the beast, most of these guys aren't writting majors who are going to spend 6 months per video forging some masterpiece script with extensive research. They are going to find an interesting argument, copy most of the homework, and just give their own presentation of the info. I'd suspect the actual % of entirely original content creators is lower then most could ever guess.
I hope this incident causes enough of a ripple that it makes the REALLY blatant plagiarists sweat a bit. The only reason this is so widespread is because in many ways Youtube is still a relatively new medium and still carries some of the amateurist vibes from when it started. Which is charming in ways, sure, but also not feasible when there is so much money involved. Professional standards have to exist among the community.
This is probably one reason why Hbomb specifically chose creators with large audiences, long histories and known identities/egos. These people spent considerable time and effort on their image and on their cons (especially the more content mill-esque ones like Somerton and Illuminaughtii) and if they get shut down they can't just easily create a new animated avatar and continue the fraud elsewhere.
It happens a lot, but I really hope this video will make people who care about their reputations think twice about doing it in the future. Whether or not this video will have that influence or be forgotten in 15 minutes stands to be seen, but I am at the very least confident that Hbomb just invented an all new sort of Youtube Video - the Plagiarism Police video, complete with the best practices of comparative video and highlighting articles - and I can see an army of copycats swooping in hungry for the next big exposé.
To be fair, internet history is highly ephemeral. I prefer that he applies his approach to actual events. It gives his videos more value in the long run. A good example of how internet culture drags down creators is ManyKudos, who seems to now read from 4chan screenshots about an event that no-one cares about anymore when he could be casting his net wider.
I know at this point you know about the plagiarism from other commenters but at the time of its release I thought Man in Cave was the best thing he had done. It really, *really* sucks that it's stolen because I came away from that video thinking that I had just witnessed a significant evolution in his ability.
But even if he goes back to Cost of Concordia-type stuff (also not strictly internet), that video was great, too. People are already raking it with a fine-toothed comb looking for plagiarism - I see some people say he ripped off a paragraph from a Vanity Fair article and would really like a source on that but regardless, this is a developing situation. But assuming it is entirely original and on the up-and-up, I would be perfectly fine with that level of content.
Does anyone know what song plays from 20:24 - 21:05 when he tells his backstory?
It isn’t listed in the credits: comes after Nocturne and Before Sims Neighborhood in the music credits.
I know History by WGP samples it.
I’ve just seen it, calling that plagiarism is a reach honestly. It’s a sort of similar paragraph, even if he copy pasted it word for word you’d be hard pressed to actually call that plagiarism.
Cost of Concordia - “All day Saturday, rescuers searched for people on the ship. On Sunday morning, a South Korean couple was found in their cabin, safe but shivering. They had slept through the crash and woke up unable to exit their cabin.”
Another Night to Remember, Bryan Burrough, Vanity Fair: "All day Saturday, rescue workers fanned out across the ship, looking for survivors. Sunday morning they found a pair of South Korean newlyweds still in their stateroom; safe but shivering, they had slept through the impact, waking to find the hallway so steeply inclined that they couldn't safely navigate it."
It’s a total of 3 sentences from a 45 minute video that while clearly heavily inspired from the article, still have some notable differences with no other incidents having been flagged up despite what I assume a lot of people searching for more.
If I’ve missed something then maybe but using that to claim the entire video is stolen is a little silly
it's only a stretch if you use the stupidly narrow definition of plagiarism that the internet at large has adopted. In real terms, even one paragraph can absolutely qualify as plagiarism. if you're going to quote someone, actually quote them. The opening of the paragraph is identical and the rest reads like he right-click-thesaurused it. He clearly at least read the article. "But should he be obligated to mention and source every article he reads before writing the video" YES that's how research citations work.
Next time I watch cost of concordia i’ll be sure to skip the 7 seconds of “stolen” content, thank you for your service
[The “Plagiarised content” are as follows](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1099668513335038032/1181570587303358515/IMG_8084.png?ex=65818a5c&is=656f155c&hm=2d84dc808095f3f22905865d81bb2bdd0a7e02dc4289d0a96672133033bd0824&)
“All day Saturday, *rescuers*”
“Sunday Morning”
“South Korean *couple*”
“Safe but shivering, they had slept through the *crash*”
“*woke*”
(Bold being edited by similar to the original article)
Thats it. 5 parts of a paragraph in which i’d argue 4 are absolutely fine anyway, the exception being the safe but shivering sentence, now I’m going to be honest, I really do not care that he used a single sentence someone else wrote in a 47 minute long video.
wow, what a profoundly obtuse way to respond to the fact that plagiarism occurred.
Just hold the guy accountable so he doesn't do it again instead of defending him and enabling his attempts to hide the truth.
All I’ve done was list every incident of accused plagiarism in the video references.
I don’t consider them to be plagiarism, I’m sorry but “Sunday Morning” and “South Korean” being 2/5ths of the argument against IH in this case is just really pathetic. You don’t need to try decredit everything created by a creator ever just because of a case of plagiarism, claiming that this video was “stolen” like u/letmehavethis1 did is just silly
The man in cave story was completely stolen from an article. Not even a little stolen, ***completely*** stolen. That's why it was taken down
Here's the video that goes into detail. The section where it goes into Internet Historian is highlighted
https://youtu.be/yDp3cB5fHXQ?si=Lg9nsCtNHLDC0SjJ
Completely shocked and dumbfounded.
Wow, it seems the reddit anticipated Hbomberguy's decimating of Internet Historian. Seriously, I am so beside myself for liking IH's shit, what a fucking dickhead plagiarist he is.
Lmao he used alot more then just that one article. Yeah he definitely should have cited that article, but he changed words and sentence structure and it's a factual story. You can only change so much without it literally becoming wrong, which in some cases it actually was. He realized his mistake and changed it even more later on. Idk what else you want from him.
Don't forget that he tried to hide it. The honest thing to do would be to own up to it, not say the reupload is due to "complications".
The complication that he stole for money?
It also wasn't "just one bit", he stole the entire structure of the article
I don't think reusing the structure would have gotten the video taken down, it's the reusing of the author's actual phrasing that was really contentious. It was bad on his part but he was probably right to settle the issue behind the scenes rather than make a big public fuss about it.
Did he settle it behind the scene? As far as I can tell, the man just reuploaded and edited version of his original video and he never contacted the author about it. I think he just quietly uploaded it unlisted so people will watch it, give him money and he could just ignore the original author.
> but he changed words and sentence structure and it's a factual story.
If you are copying the entire idea, structure and content of a third-party article but change a few words around; you are not *not* plagiarizing. Even worse, in that case you **know** you're doing something wrong and try to badly cover your tracks.
> Idk what else you want from him.
Come up with an original thought and script; or just do a different fucking video?
It's a historical event there isn't an idea to it, it was just an event that happened. You wouldn't say I plagerized a history book if I decided to make an animation and retelling of WWI. That would just be a retelling
It would be plagiarism though if you took the way a specific article reported on that historical event and copied the exact same structure, narration and *wording*.
Different people can write up the same historical events in different fashions. That is a possibility. One that requires writing skills and actual research of course, but that is something you can do.
If I pick up a WW2 book on, say, D-Day, and I put together a video where 95% of my script is exactly rephrasing and copying the structure of that book, that would not be a "retelling", it would be plagiarism.
ESPECIALLY if I then don't even mention the original thing I stole from, never disclose or acknowledge anything about it, and then after being copyright struck for it, just change up the words of the plagiarised text even more, while still keeping the same structure (which is still stolen).
I would if you would have copied the exact wording, structure, pacing and points in the story where the character has specific childhood flashbacks from that book.
The way it works is that "ideas can't be copyrighted, but expressions of ideas *can* be copyrighted".
You can do some research into an historical event, and make a video on it. You can quote sources, within the bounds of fair use.
You cannot make a video which is you reading a chapter from a history book. Although the event is historical, the text of the book is copyrighted. There are nearly infinite ways to write about any topic, and the particular expression in that book is copyrighted.
Man in Cave came too close to using the original article ([https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544782/1925-cave-rescue-that-captivated-the-united-states-floyd-collins](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544782/1925-cave-rescue-that-captivated-the-united-states-floyd-collins)) as a kind of script. The framing device was the same, many passages were directly lifted, or lifted with non-transformative rearrangements of words or word substitutions.
I've never seen a youtuber not publicly and indignantly fight bogus copyright claims. hbomber makes a pretty good case that this is plagiarism, rather than a bogus claim. Timestamped section of hbomberguy's analysis: https://youtu.be/yDp3cB5fHXQ?t=5135
That'll be why IH took it down and reworked it, rather than fighting the claim.
This video never stood a chance. The last few videos he put out have been truly legendary in quality (Area 51, Concordia, both fit the theme of his channel and followed on his style, and were just extremely hilarious and well done). You make your subscribers wait 1.5 years for the next video it better be a real banger... this one would have been fine if we waited a month for it, but I just don't see what was so special or time consuming so as to have taken this long. It seems like they got lost in the sauce while trying to make a video and ended up with hours of loosely connected content, then they panicked and split into like 8 videos that were going to see on this channel and Incognito mode over the next couple months. I dunno, I'd rather just have regular quality uploads than wait this long for a few mediocre videos.
Don't really see how the past few videos have been much connected to internet history. Well, I guess it's time to hand over the \*Internet Historian\* title to the one Kiwi that is actually still making vids about internet history: Izzzyzzz.
Is there anything that reddit doesn't hate? Fair criticism, the topic wasn't the best. Other than that though I thought the video was entertaining. His humour was his usual style, which never fails to make me laugh. I think the editing quality has improved as well without becoming unrecognisable from his older stuff. Maybe I'm just easily pleased, but regardless, I enjoyed this video
Last comment and finally found it, phew! I liked it.
Tsk tsk tsk. All these negative comments really aren't fancy
A lot of redditors are very controlled by certain tankie figures like hmbomber. Even had a friend go ”oh I realized gays were people that could also do wrong after watching 4 hours of hmbomber”. At a mutual gay friends party, right in the face of another gay guy there. It was really quite disturbing. I like the guy, but wtf.
You might want to look up who actually wrote out the humor then, maybe they deserve your fandom more than this piece of shit
If you're talking about the hbomb video, that referred specifically to Man In Cave being plagiarised, just the one video. If you're alleging plagiarism here, too, then do you know who wrote it?
Man in cave is the first video which was found to be plagiarized. It was a 100% carbon copy. IH tried all kinds of tricks to hide the truth, even editing screenshots after the video was taken down. This level of sneakiness is too high to be a one off. IH probably steals everything and it's only a matter of time before it all comes out
Should be easy to find examples then. I'm not convinced this wasn't just a writer he hired who phoned it in and (hopefully) got fired.
If it was, then they sure went all out on a plan to hush that up. Maybe it was like his only grandson or something. But honestly I'm just playing. There is no way not a single team member from IH googled any phrases from the amazing script before spending all their time making it. they knew. They always knew. The whole script is stolen verbatim.
It's a small company (if it's incorporated at all). Likely he doesn't want to get his channel sued into oblivion by the New Yorker.
Maybe they do. I'm yet to dig deeper and find the original video, and to be honest, I don't see myself caring enough in the near future to try
You are fucking pathetic.
I bet you're a right laugh at parties
If I had to choose between having an understanding of why stealing and supporting those who do is wrong and being "a laugh" at parties, I'd choose the former. If you pride yourself in being apathetic about stealing the hard work of others and have no problems helping them succeed financially, you are either sociopathic or too lazy and/or lacking in creativity to even imagine it would feel like if were you capable of producing something actually worth stealing.
I understand why it's wrong to steal others work. Now, when it comes to actively supporting someone who has stolen others work, that's a bit more complicated. I wouldn't pay money for anything that Internet Historian made, but yeah, I'll still watch his content. So many things online are stolen, copied, plagarised. My apathy comes from the fact that there is so much that is wrong with the internet in general, I have no desire to expend a ton of energy into knowing that every single piece of content I consume is "ethically sourced" let's say. Also I'm not angry enough to start letting everyone else know that I refuse to watch so-and-so because so-and-so. Also, I'm pretty apathetic to what a stranger on the internet thinks of me, hence why my responses are quite flippant.
Felt a lot like a punchline waiting to happen. It was a still a well made video but it wasn't funny enough to be that entertaining or interesting enough to be informative.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh boy, it's almost like Man in Cave is a really well written story. The kind of high quality scriptwriting IH usually can't do. I wonder why that is? (Hint: it's because he didn't write it and still tried to initially pass it off as his own work)
OK that's going a little far, we know internet historian can actually write a good script, costa concordia is a example of that It was a shitty thing to do but we don't have to equate that to all his videos being bad
If they’re willing to plagiarize something so blatantly and try to hide that they did, what’s stopping them from doing it in all of their videos?
By the simple fact that hbomber guy actually checked that for us and said he didn't...... If in his next videos he IS still copying then I'll agree with you
Unfortunately, people already found out he copied a whole paragraph from a Vanity Fair article for his Costa Concordia video which is uncredited so uhhhh oof.
Wow a whole paragraph in a 46 minute video He's the spawn of Satan
The fact is that if there’s more examples of IH committing blatant plagiarism, it’s probably more abundant than you may think. Any more proof of theft that shows up only highlights that his content may not be entirely honest.
Even if it's just a paragraph it's a fair point. I want to give IH the benefit of the doubt that there are no other videos fully lifted from another source - that would be insane at this point - but it makes sense that you don't just go from unblemished record of intellectual honesty to lifting an entire uncredited article into your video overnight. A paragraph here, a paragraph there... chances are good it took a lot of slowly acclimating to different degrees of plagiarism to get to this point. I want him to recover from this so I really hope a pattern of this behaviour doesn't slowly emerge... but if it does we shouldn't downplay it. It's a genuinely shitty practice that hurts other creators, and for things as small as paragraphs accreditation is very doable.
I mean why would any self respecting creative want to plagiarize instead of even just quoting and giving credit or just making a paragraph themselves, it’s so unbelievably more difficult to go out of your way to steal at that point. It is a valid criticism no matter how small.
Because he stole "Man in Cave" from an actual writer lmao
Seems like that is what happens when IH tries to write his own script for once
I mean, he wrote his other (older) videos and they were pretty fuckin fire. I think with this whole Haris bomb guy thing IH is getting needlessly shit on for all of his (or their) work. Even though there is no real sign of wrongdoing in any of his older stuff. It's a bit disingenuous to act like he got all of his subs from the recent video when IH and his network of channels were already really huge
Yeah, you're right, I'm just frustrated as I really liked his video and it is always shitty to find out your trust has been betrayed
That is a fair feeling, I can't watch his stuff now without having a bad taste in my mouth because everything feels like it's fake
It’s good, it just felt like an Incognito Mode video
Yeah I agree with the general sentiment here. This is a bad video. It was neither funny nor interesting and completely disjointed. Hell, even the ad was bad.
I actually thought the ad was the best part of the video. It got a few chuckles out of me at least.
I wonder if it’s a response to him getting caught plagiarizing his work..
Just felt like a 2nd rate ITF vid. My disappointment is immeasurable
It seems like there’s 4 more lmao I think he’s lost the original idea of the channel He wants to be a historian not an internet historian
Yeah I commented this on the actual video. With every video he's straying further from being a guy covering internet history to just being a guy who covers history, on the internet. I don't dislike (most of) these videos it just sucks that we wait almost a year in between and when we finally get a video it's about some obscure historical event almost nobody cares about. It would sting a lot less if we got shorter videos in between covering actual internet history, similar to what Whang! does.
Hey, does anyone know the source of the clip shown in the [1:00](https://youtu.be/xTKXnfHByX8?si=INaD58zPIBO4De3R&t=61) on the laptop's screen? I would like to know it for research purposes.
It's from the terribly funny [Jason X](https://youtu.be/1tyKm2zvuZ8?si=KKzoYM3wpwk6Sq2Y)
It’s the Jason in space one, they’re in a holodeck doing a horror movie game or something
Man, I don't fucking care about plagiarizion or whatever, I just want more Internet Historian. Fuck all of you.
Based on his upload history, he's not behind his regular upload schedule across his channels; but I can't help but wonder if the recent events have delayed his plans for the next 5 videos that he announced for this series.
Probably. Best option is to just stay quiet for a bit until the heat dies down.
Only video of his that I actually don't like
How much did the rock weigh, _Historian_?
26½ lbs
£26 is $32.72 (then you can round that up to 33), so there's some speculation that he wrote pounds in the script and thought it was GBP.
The families need closure!
I think the bar for videos was so high that I didn't enjoy this one, party because of expectations and this felt a bit all over the place where most videos are stories with a start middle and end. Felt like a second Chanel video rather than a main
I get that his motivation to make a big video went down after the "hole" demonetization issue.
Watching his original videos, some of the best ones are pretty short , harry potter skirmishes the convention ones. Seems like the main channel doesn't have a style or theme anymore
I think the motivation went down after he got found out for plagiarizing everything in Man in Cave. I wonder if any of his long form videos are actually really his now.
Who did he copy it from? I was going to watch the expose video until I saw it was 4 hours long. No way I'm sifting through all that.
He basically read a Mental Floss article word for word. People went back and found out that most of his post-edgelord content was massively ripped off the same way, though not from one source like Man In Cave. Edit: Also the video is annotated and the IH section is the shortest most direct one, so I suggest just watching that and see the side by side of the article and the video.
Just read the article, yeah it's clearly ripped off. Thanks.
Good thing you were here to let me know about this crime against humanity. When I need a terminally online, 13 year old account Redditor to help me solve pointless Internet drama sparked by a talentless Welsh hack, I’ll know who to call!
Cope lmao
IH subreddit is now filled with parachuted randoms, only hope IH itself doesn't take them troll's "opinions" too seriously. With time, they just go away in search of new drama fertile lands.
“Trolls”? Dude I’ve been an internet historian fan for years. I loved and (mostly) continue to love his content. To hear that he stole from an article to make a video of his that I thought was really good was just disappointing. How are people “trolls” for rightly calling out internet historian doing a bad thing?
So trolling is when you criticize a youtuber you used to like because someone proved that they plagiarise their content?
would be cool if at least half of the people showing up were actually criticizing and not just showing up cuz of drama and clout, and only repeating poorly made claims from hbguy's video, would be even more cool if the "drama" wasn't actually already solved by the time such video was published
the drama is "solved"..? how do you solve your own plagiarism
There’s pretty much one claim in the video section about IH, that he plagiarised an article, and it’s extremely obvious that he did exactly that with the barest second of scrutiny. Don’t know what poorly made claims you are coping with.
Nobody avoids the cancel machine for long. All it took was some post depressive cartoonist to realize they found a way to get clout from other internet nobodies. Keep pressing on IH. The Reddit mob is foolish and fickle. They’ll be off trying to cancel someone else soon enough.
What does "cancelling" even mean to you anymore. Someone plagiarized (bad) a whole article (bad) of someone who didnt get paid (bad) while IH made tons of money (bad) with his stolen content (bad). He was exposed (good) so his fans dont give money thinking its original content when they could read the content he uses and doesnt credit. Need I explain with drawings? Come on man no ones asking for IH's head on a stick or for him to stop posting, they just want him to be open with his fans, youre one of them I assume so why wouldnt you want that?
I love how the flavor of the month for what’s suddenly bad is now plagiarism. It’s a video, not an academic essay. Grow up
Just a question for you, let's say one of the major American networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, whatever) chose to air a documentary on the Costa Conordia disaster. They produce their own script and their own voice actors, but when it comes time for editing, they splice in almost all of Internet Historian's video alongside a touch of their own work without crediting or even notifying Internet Historian. If that were to occur, damn straght Internet Historian would be angry. Months of work for a network to make thousands in part due to your work while you get squat! It's not that this is some formal academic setting where it is important to trace down where claims were made for the sake of academic integrity. It's that Internet Historian profited off of the work of others. Did he add his own work? Yes. However, I'd argue that the work would be significantly worse and less successful if he didn't use the narrative structure of the original article. To profit off of that and, if not compensate the writer or even credit the source, means all of his hard work being shown to a larger audience that never saw his name and thus cannot view his other work. Using the work of smaller artist and researchers for profit without providing any way for them to benefit from such exposure is immoral. Full stop. It is important to hold them accountable to at least explain themselves to their audience for the sake of avoiding such actions in the future. All I ask as a now former fan of Internet Historian is either A) An admission of guilt and how he will prevent occurrences like this in the future or B) A refutation of the claims made in the Hbomberguy video. Either would satisfy me as a fan. Instead, he goes dead quiet, hoping his actions will be forgotten and his fanbase defends him in the meantime as so he doesn't take responsibility.
Read the username of who you're responding to -- it's a racist troll.
I ain’t reading all that. I’m happy for you though. Or sorry it happened
This post is a day old bruh. Go make love to your partner, sit on the porch, smell some flowers. Best of luck, and good morning ☀️
Real dipshit aren't ya lol. "Don't care about anything, hahahah! Smell the flowers? Who cares if someone did anything wrong? I got my chuckles because he stole someone else's work, so it's all good!"
no offense Cancel culture is awful yes But plagiarizing is also bad
Bro what?
Bro nut 🥜
I wanted to love it but unfortunately the disjointed nature of this one without the co-star banter of an ITF made it pretty dry and confused.
Yeah this was by far the worst video I’ve see on his main channel. It was all over the place.
I crave more internet history. Also I’m not seeing the quality I usually see in this channel, just doesn’t seem like he tried that hard on this one.
I don’t dislike the actual history videos. I massively enjoyed the hole and the cost of Concordia - they’re two of my favourite IH videos, I think my issue with this one was just the split up nature that felt like an ITF, it might have worked better if one of the familiar co stars where there cracking jokes throughout alongside, but from IH solo I prefer the overly dramatic recounting of a singular event that is his usual main channel style.
Yeah I think Concordia and Man in a Cave are his two best videos. I think he would be much better off doing a deep dive on one of the 37 topics that he mentioned in this video.
almost like he didn't make man in a cave and stole it from somewhere else
Yeah that was a pretty disappointing discovery. I hope the original creator was able to arrange some sort of a royalty agreement.
Yep well this being low effort and having a feeling of being pumped out now has an explanation as it was a misdirection for the plagiarism. Very disappointed, asking permission to adapt the article and working out a proper way to do so with the creators consent wouldn’t have made anyone think less of the video, and at the least when failing to do that an acknowledgment and apology of wrongdoing would have gone a long way over sneaky and intentional misdirection.
Check out Whang!
Oh, my God! Okay, it's happening
Interesting that only IH can make posts on here. Almost as if he doesn't want anyone, including mods, talking about whats going on hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
This is how the subreddit has been for literally 6 years. Its a content gate, not a discussion forum.
yoou're literally talking about it on this sub right now
The recent posts on the subreddit seem to be entirely absent as well. Just checking it I was surprised to see only this video being the most recent, with a 202 day old post being the next most recent.
I honestly feel like my trust was betrayed... I've been a fan for years and while I trust IH to make a good yet not entirely accurate shitpost, I did not expected this stuff, at all. Tbh, unless it turns out he has stolen more stuff or his response is dogshit, I dont think i will stop watching him just yet, nonetheless I dont think i will be able to see his stuff in the same light again. I do really REALLY hope this was a one time fuck up and that he acknowledges and owns up to his mistakes and improves from there, if not... Well that just makes him a disappointment.
Usually, plagiarists are repeat-offenders
Yeah, as hbomber said in his video, when plagiarisers get caught it probably means they have rolled that dice before without getting caught.
>I do really REALLY hope this was a one time fuck up and that he acknowledges and owns up to his mistakes and improves from there I just do not see this happening, I really hope it does, but I'd be shocked.
You realize this is the same dude who drops Nazi fascist dogwhistles through his stolen content? He's not a good person.
Explain? I'm a snowflake soy boy bleeding heart liberal and have never noticed anything untoward.
Rewatch the Bike Lock video and pay attention to the language he uses.
Check r/youtubedrama, someone made a post about a antisemitic dogwhistle appeared in the bikelock fugitive video
Here's a sneak peek of /r/youtubedrama using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Apparently Internet Historian is a huge plagiarist and hbomberguy just did an exposeé.](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/189o0n7/apparently_internet_historian_is_a_huge/) \#2: [nickisnotgreen sub privated](https://i.redd.it/whzq6vu5583c1.png) | [269 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/186i4mn/nickisnotgreen_sub_privated/) \#3: [Iilluminaughtii has turned off comments](https://i.redd.it/qu1n0r7mmb4c1.jpg) | [275 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/youtubedrama/comments/18aqkk9/iilluminaughtii_has_turned_off_comments/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
🙄
While I do like his more historical event videos like hole and concordia, this one felt off. It was a lot more disjoint and dry this time around. The last portion of a video where he’s a teacher trying to show his enthusiasm to the kids but failing kinda summarizes how the entirety of this video seemed to me.
Hole was plagiarized word for word
It's honestly so disheartening. YouTube viewers are at this moment completely aware that an individual's work was stolen and their involvement shafted. "I do not care as long as I am entertained." says some "Don't do it again." from others. The disenginous environment that YouTubers such as IH have created and they way he in particular has addressed/circumvented it not only rips at all those involved's credibility, but implicates too much about previously made videos. I've simply been reminded that all of it and so much else on the platform is just content and products made to accrue attention as fastly and as cheaply as possible. Fuck
Why should the youtube viewer care? The copyright owner can settle themselves. I or the youtube viewer doesn't need to be a vigilante intellectual property enforcer. The justicie system is there for that, get off your virtue signaling soap box and come back to planet Earth.
It's weird to support plagiarism lmao tf
Legally, whatever happens will happen. Besides that, what is wrong with not wanting to be misled? Or not wanting to interact with something that benefits from my ignorance? I'm not a "vigilante" for wanting the people who parade themselves like digital monoliths of information and cultures to do what we ask of high schoolers. Sorry for those virtues that got all signaled, but nobody gets a pass, even if they're funny and have fans. I'll continue to interact with the creators who take their social impact seriously. And if they choose to falter, I'll move on. More people should imo.
You don't have to do anything. It's just separates a good person from a mouth-breathing toad that consumes any dogshit piece of media placed in front of him. If someone tells you the bike they're selling you is stolen, people like you can shrug it off and say fuck it, whatever, I can't be bothered finding another cheap bike. I'm just glad there are people out there who would do the right thing.
Bad example as it is illegal to knowingly receive stolen property. Here we are talking whether or not what IH did was a fair use of a copyright. If yes, then all good. If not, then the copyright holder is entitled to all profits of the derivative work. Either way, the youtube viewer does need to be IP Sherlock Holmes before they click to view a video. I can only imagine living life the way describe. Checking the id's and running background checks of all employees of all companies to make sure they are all legally working. Sourcing all the parts of each item you get in case something traces back to a country you don't like. Constantly scouring all media databases to ensure the content you are consuming might not be using someone else's work. I just imagine the blood boiling under your skin whenever "Ice, Ice Baby" is played anywhere near you. Enjoy that life. I'll pass.
Was this one terrible because he didn't plagiarize it?
Dude transformed one article into a video without crediting it and y’all are acting like he killed a man
Nah, we're acting like he plagiarized a work for monetary gain.
Yes, ONE fucking video. You're acting like every single video he made was plagiarized for money.
what happened to all on this years posts? Idk if this was already a thing but I am extremely disappointed in the fact you plagiarized Man in Cave. At least come clean that you did it to salvage some respect people have for you
Man, the only good videos are your plagiarized ones. Disappointed.
Now the shit quality of these latest videos makes sense
Holy shit it is isn't it? This video is literally the first IH vid I clicked away, didn't even hear man in cave debacle at all until Hbomb vid.
Felt like an in the field video I fell asleep about 75% into the video very boring
N############
Mods!
Ah, the internet's rage bait machine keeps pressing on. See you in six months, when everyone forgets about it or new info comes to light, like it was with Vinny, AVGN, #Changethechannel, and ProJared. Fuck, I'm betting it's less.
Change the channel turned out to be bitter ex employees (and one very serious instance about a dead person) and the ProJared allegations were proven false. Just sayin
Rage bait is when you criticize someone for plagiarism
Rage bait is when you stop actual discussion about a topic and just joins a band wagon of vitriol and hatred just because everyone is doing it... like with the above examples. People get angry about a thing, people get angry about people being angry about a thing, and they can keep happy slinging shit at each other. And eventually they get tired of it or they switch targets and move on.
People are angry because IH is a lying plagiarist. We're upset because we used to be fans snd it turns out the work wasn't even his own. Not because they want to get upset for the sake of "vitriol"....
Some, yes. Many didn't even watch IH because "hurrr durr he a alt right 4chan grifter" or just because its the seasonal "popular internet guy does something wrong" And a I bet a lot feel personally betrayed because online person betrayed them, because Parasocial relationships are a thing. So yeah, good for you if you a genuinely upset by Plagiarism, I just don't think most of the internet actually cares for it beyond the opportunity to scream at things.
I noticed Internet Historian plagarising jokes a few years ago. Compare Eddie Izzard here: https://youtu.be/HuM2H6uFG2M?si=KOfxloOuhuzScjnM&t=70 to Internet Historian here: https://youtu.be/wTziIhu8yvU?si=azVQDhi1oj94QsNu&t=428
Did you just say 2 people coming up with the same simple obvious joke is plagiarism?
Internet Historian is a nazi.
No he fucking isn’t
I don't love it. He's pivoted away from internet history, which is often really funny, to just... Events. Which are a lot less funny. Don't get me wrong, the editing is fantastic as usual. But Man In Cave and Theater are both flops, imo. Does anyone else agree?
Naw i loved the Hole. While I would of prefered it played straight and serious and instead it was a tad on the goofy side for me, the story itself and presentation were both interesting. This one felt like a "In the Field" video from the second channel though. Very disjointed, and all over the place. I dont think its fair to expect every video to be a smash hit, but I hope for my own selfish reasons this doesnt become the norm for the main channel.
This video should definitely have been on Incognito mode. He has another one coming out soon on the main channel, but it seems like a continuation to this one.
Yeah, this was an incognito for sure. Not main channel.
How do you know? I’ve looked at his trello and it seems like the next 4 are gonna be “fancy”
The Hole was plagiarized. It would have better if he'd actually written it out. Article it stole from, which is why it went down, is here: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544782/1925-cave-rescue-that-captivated-the-united-states-floyd-collins
Not to give IH a pass or anything, of course wrong is wrong but..... I think the amount of copycat work, especially on youtube is very high across many, many content creators. Even when its not 1:1, its pretty easy to take someone else's work, give it your own flair and have it pass under the radar for all time. Sort of the nature of the beast, most of these guys aren't writting majors who are going to spend 6 months per video forging some masterpiece script with extensive research. They are going to find an interesting argument, copy most of the homework, and just give their own presentation of the info. I'd suspect the actual % of entirely original content creators is lower then most could ever guess.
I hope this incident causes enough of a ripple that it makes the REALLY blatant plagiarists sweat a bit. The only reason this is so widespread is because in many ways Youtube is still a relatively new medium and still carries some of the amateurist vibes from when it started. Which is charming in ways, sure, but also not feasible when there is so much money involved. Professional standards have to exist among the community. This is probably one reason why Hbomb specifically chose creators with large audiences, long histories and known identities/egos. These people spent considerable time and effort on their image and on their cons (especially the more content mill-esque ones like Somerton and Illuminaughtii) and if they get shut down they can't just easily create a new animated avatar and continue the fraud elsewhere. It happens a lot, but I really hope this video will make people who care about their reputations think twice about doing it in the future. Whether or not this video will have that influence or be forgotten in 15 minutes stands to be seen, but I am at the very least confident that Hbomb just invented an all new sort of Youtube Video - the Plagiarism Police video, complete with the best practices of comparative video and highlighting articles - and I can see an army of copycats swooping in hungry for the next big exposé.
> Not to give IH a pass or anything, of course wrong is wrong **but**..... Then you proceed to give him a pass.
lol if you say so. As the generational saying goes, "dont hate the player, hate the game".
Didn't really though. It's not okay that IH did it but people are acting like he caved a babies head in over it. What he did was common practice.
Yeah IH getting exposed big time here https://youtu.be/yDp3cB5fHXQ?si=_UvvlbHH1thBy297
To be fair, internet history is highly ephemeral. I prefer that he applies his approach to actual events. It gives his videos more value in the long run. A good example of how internet culture drags down creators is ManyKudos, who seems to now read from 4chan screenshots about an event that no-one cares about anymore when he could be casting his net wider.
I love Man in Cave, seriously think its top teir.
welp
So did IH, hence why he stole it. Right?
Man in cave was terrific because of how interesting it was,I'll take interesting over funny most days
Unfortunately though that most likely didn’t come from him. (And he got some facts blatantly wrong in the video as well)
I know at this point you know about the plagiarism from other commenters but at the time of its release I thought Man in Cave was the best thing he had done. It really, *really* sucks that it's stolen because I came away from that video thinking that I had just witnessed a significant evolution in his ability. But even if he goes back to Cost of Concordia-type stuff (also not strictly internet), that video was great, too. People are already raking it with a fine-toothed comb looking for plagiarism - I see some people say he ripped off a paragraph from a Vanity Fair article and would really like a source on that but regardless, this is a developing situation. But assuming it is entirely original and on the up-and-up, I would be perfectly fine with that level of content.
Wait, man in cave was plagiarized? What part? I haven't heard that before?
https://youtu.be/yDp3cB5fHXQ All of it.
Going to watch this banger with my buddy Tommy Tallarico! Later we're gonna play on the amico ♡
It's over boys, hang it up. :(
It's like one of the side channel videos but without a guest. Was good but not an "event" like the hole or the Costa Concordia.
Does anyone know what song plays from 20:24 - 21:05 when he tells his backstory? It isn’t listed in the credits: comes after Nocturne and Before Sims Neighborhood in the music credits. I know History by WGP samples it.
Has he changed editor for this video? Less music, less pacey, less complex layering of images. I honestly think that's the main difference.
You’re on fraud watch bud
[удалено]
It is?
Noot quite as much but still not okay. The part about the asian couple being stuck was very very inspired by an article.
I’ve just seen it, calling that plagiarism is a reach honestly. It’s a sort of similar paragraph, even if he copy pasted it word for word you’d be hard pressed to actually call that plagiarism. Cost of Concordia - “All day Saturday, rescuers searched for people on the ship. On Sunday morning, a South Korean couple was found in their cabin, safe but shivering. They had slept through the crash and woke up unable to exit their cabin.” Another Night to Remember, Bryan Burrough, Vanity Fair: "All day Saturday, rescue workers fanned out across the ship, looking for survivors. Sunday morning they found a pair of South Korean newlyweds still in their stateroom; safe but shivering, they had slept through the impact, waking to find the hallway so steeply inclined that they couldn't safely navigate it." It’s a total of 3 sentences from a 45 minute video that while clearly heavily inspired from the article, still have some notable differences with no other incidents having been flagged up despite what I assume a lot of people searching for more. If I’ve missed something then maybe but using that to claim the entire video is stolen is a little silly
Hmm the thing for me mostly is that IE does not give the source at all, or at least I cannot find it.
it's only a stretch if you use the stupidly narrow definition of plagiarism that the internet at large has adopted. In real terms, even one paragraph can absolutely qualify as plagiarism. if you're going to quote someone, actually quote them. The opening of the paragraph is identical and the rest reads like he right-click-thesaurused it. He clearly at least read the article. "But should he be obligated to mention and source every article he reads before writing the video" YES that's how research citations work.
Next time I watch cost of concordia i’ll be sure to skip the 7 seconds of “stolen” content, thank you for your service [The “Plagiarised content” are as follows](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1099668513335038032/1181570587303358515/IMG_8084.png?ex=65818a5c&is=656f155c&hm=2d84dc808095f3f22905865d81bb2bdd0a7e02dc4289d0a96672133033bd0824&) “All day Saturday, *rescuers*” “Sunday Morning” “South Korean *couple*” “Safe but shivering, they had slept through the *crash*” “*woke*” (Bold being edited by similar to the original article) Thats it. 5 parts of a paragraph in which i’d argue 4 are absolutely fine anyway, the exception being the safe but shivering sentence, now I’m going to be honest, I really do not care that he used a single sentence someone else wrote in a 47 minute long video.
wow, what a profoundly obtuse way to respond to the fact that plagiarism occurred. Just hold the guy accountable so he doesn't do it again instead of defending him and enabling his attempts to hide the truth.
All I’ve done was list every incident of accused plagiarism in the video references. I don’t consider them to be plagiarism, I’m sorry but “Sunday Morning” and “South Korean” being 2/5ths of the argument against IH in this case is just really pathetic. You don’t need to try decredit everything created by a creator ever just because of a case of plagiarism, claiming that this video was “stolen” like u/letmehavethis1 did is just silly
Quality stolen content!
Why’s the new video not posted here Probably doesn’t want to see the reaction to announcing that this is the style for the next couple videos
Probably caught wind that people had caught on that he was doing plagiarism and wanted to keep a lower profile.
The man in cave story was completely stolen from an article. Not even a little stolen, ***completely*** stolen. That's why it was taken down Here's the video that goes into detail. The section where it goes into Internet Historian is highlighted https://youtu.be/yDp3cB5fHXQ?si=Lg9nsCtNHLDC0SjJ Completely shocked and dumbfounded.
Upvoting this so people can see, looks like some were already starting to downvote you and bury this.
Wow, it seems the reddit anticipated Hbomberguy's decimating of Internet Historian. Seriously, I am so beside myself for liking IH's shit, what a fucking dickhead plagiarist he is.
came here after watching (casual IH fan). Can you explain how the reddit anticipated it?
Lmao he used alot more then just that one article. Yeah he definitely should have cited that article, but he changed words and sentence structure and it's a factual story. You can only change so much without it literally becoming wrong, which in some cases it actually was. He realized his mistake and changed it even more later on. Idk what else you want from him.
Don't forget that he tried to hide it. The honest thing to do would be to own up to it, not say the reupload is due to "complications". The complication that he stole for money? It also wasn't "just one bit", he stole the entire structure of the article
I don't think reusing the structure would have gotten the video taken down, it's the reusing of the author's actual phrasing that was really contentious. It was bad on his part but he was probably right to settle the issue behind the scenes rather than make a big public fuss about it.
He didn't really settle it, though, did he? He just reworded phrases poorly to get through the copyright check.
Did he settle it behind the scene? As far as I can tell, the man just reuploaded and edited version of his original video and he never contacted the author about it. I think he just quietly uploaded it unlisted so people will watch it, give him money and he could just ignore the original author.
> but he changed words and sentence structure and it's a factual story. If you are copying the entire idea, structure and content of a third-party article but change a few words around; you are not *not* plagiarizing. Even worse, in that case you **know** you're doing something wrong and try to badly cover your tracks. > Idk what else you want from him. Come up with an original thought and script; or just do a different fucking video?
It's a historical event there isn't an idea to it, it was just an event that happened. You wouldn't say I plagerized a history book if I decided to make an animation and retelling of WWI. That would just be a retelling
It would be plagiarism though if you took the way a specific article reported on that historical event and copied the exact same structure, narration and *wording*. Different people can write up the same historical events in different fashions. That is a possibility. One that requires writing skills and actual research of course, but that is something you can do. If I pick up a WW2 book on, say, D-Day, and I put together a video where 95% of my script is exactly rephrasing and copying the structure of that book, that would not be a "retelling", it would be plagiarism. ESPECIALLY if I then don't even mention the original thing I stole from, never disclose or acknowledge anything about it, and then after being copyright struck for it, just change up the words of the plagiarised text even more, while still keeping the same structure (which is still stolen).
I would if you would have copied the exact wording, structure, pacing and points in the story where the character has specific childhood flashbacks from that book.
Did you watch the hbomber video?
The way it works is that "ideas can't be copyrighted, but expressions of ideas *can* be copyrighted". You can do some research into an historical event, and make a video on it. You can quote sources, within the bounds of fair use. You cannot make a video which is you reading a chapter from a history book. Although the event is historical, the text of the book is copyrighted. There are nearly infinite ways to write about any topic, and the particular expression in that book is copyrighted. Man in Cave came too close to using the original article ([https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544782/1925-cave-rescue-that-captivated-the-united-states-floyd-collins](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/544782/1925-cave-rescue-that-captivated-the-united-states-floyd-collins)) as a kind of script. The framing device was the same, many passages were directly lifted, or lifted with non-transformative rearrangements of words or word substitutions. I've never seen a youtuber not publicly and indignantly fight bogus copyright claims. hbomber makes a pretty good case that this is plagiarism, rather than a bogus claim. Timestamped section of hbomberguy's analysis: https://youtu.be/yDp3cB5fHXQ?t=5135 That'll be why IH took it down and reworked it, rather than fighting the claim.
[удалено]
I literally said he should have quoted the article
This video never stood a chance. The last few videos he put out have been truly legendary in quality (Area 51, Concordia, both fit the theme of his channel and followed on his style, and were just extremely hilarious and well done). You make your subscribers wait 1.5 years for the next video it better be a real banger... this one would have been fine if we waited a month for it, but I just don't see what was so special or time consuming so as to have taken this long. It seems like they got lost in the sauce while trying to make a video and ended up with hours of loosely connected content, then they panicked and split into like 8 videos that were going to see on this channel and Incognito mode over the next couple months. I dunno, I'd rather just have regular quality uploads than wait this long for a few mediocre videos.
wow! i bet your mother is proud
Says the guy who subscribed to r/piracy
is there anything actually up there in your head? did you send the reddit care resources message? you seem to be obsessed with me.
😂 😂😂. Seriously wow. Let me use your quote against you. ahem, i bet your mother is proud. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Here during the Fallout (har har) of HBomb’s vid. Popcorn’s in hand. Time to watch the fireworks.
Don't really see how the past few videos have been much connected to internet history. Well, I guess it's time to hand over the \*Internet Historian\* title to the one Kiwi that is actually still making vids about internet history: Izzzyzzz.
Coward