I noticed you opted not to link the thread or post they were attached to. I've gone ahead and found it.
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/kimbe...-anafrills-anarchofrills.118753/post-12105373
In general I'd be hesitant to defend a full hour long archive unless the context is particularly persuasive. Fortunately for me, the user Don.Apple did a very good job at providing context. His post is very long, has paragraphs of explanation, provides the full archives and then smaller clips from it.
Compare this to what would probably be considered an infringing use: a fan of a popular vtuber posts a Patreon-only stream in the Virtual YouTubers thread with a message like, "here's wee-chan's latest stream!!".
The four pillars of fair use are outlined here:
https://copyright.columbia.edu/basics/fair-use.html
1. Purpose and Character of the Use. Derision and ridicule are more strongly protected than other forms of speech, believe it or not.
2. Nature of the Copyrighted Work. Compare what you're looking at vs. what is ordinarily protected by copyright. Does turning on the camera and doing a stream for 2 hours amount to the same product as a 2 hour long feature film? Absolutely not, and a use is evaluated with that in mind.
3. The Amount of the Portion Used. This is not in our favor because all of its used. It's basically impossible to DMCA a 1 minute long clip, but a full copy is easier.
4. The Effect of the use on the Potential Market or Value of the Work.
This is the big one. If the use is a full copy but it is of something protected by paywall (movies), then the market is negative impacted. If I take your vtuber design and make a figurine out of it, then that is also copyright infringement because you reserve the right to exploit your creative property in that way. The impact on your property is a major consideration in the copyright court.
Saying "I turned on my webcam and started crying for 2 hours so this infringes my rights to archive it" is not as persuasive as "I spent 90 million dollars making this 2 hour long movie to sell tickets to see it and they're hosting it for free".
Also, as far as copyright goes, if I choose to ignore your DMCA (and I will), you have to actually prove damages to win damages. Even if it's found not to be fair use, you have to prove that the infringement hurt you in some way to be awarded anything. Movies can do this quite easily, but since your livestreams make money through live superchats and you make nothing off the archive, then there are no damages.
Punitive damages are awarded only when the copyright infringement is deliberate and no reasonable person could have considered it fair use (i.e. pirate copies of movies). I, obviously, have very good reason to believe this is fair use.
I like talking about copyright so that's why I wrote this email. I'm not interested in hearing a refutation of my points; you asked me and I have given you an answer. If you consult an attorney and he tells you I'm wrong, remember that he gets paid regardless of if you win. Taking a copyright claim to federal court will cost about $75,000.
Cheers,
Josh