Updated: Please Give Me the Interwebnet Monies

In a move reminiscent of South Park's "Canada On Strike" episode in which the boys decide to upload a video onto Youtube in hopes of earning money, a popular YouTube user has decided to sue YouTube and Google for what he considers should be his profits.

The user BennyBaby, real name Ben Ligeri, is suing both of these entities for 1 million dollars. According to InformationWeek "Legeri calculates that his daily YouTube traffic of 11,200 views represents between 1/9000 and 1/500 of YouTube's 100 million views per day. Thus, he estimates that his traffic is worth between $200,000 and $3.6 million [...]".

While other users with thousands of hits each day might support Mr. Ligeri in his quest to receive profits from YouTube and Google, unfortunately most users who sign up on websites fail to actually read the Terms and Conditions that they have agreed to.

In this case, YouTube clearly states in Part 6 Section C of their Terms of Use "[...]by submitting User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website [...]" and in Part 14 of the agreement it states "You and YouTube agree that any cause of action arising out of or related to the YouTube website must commence within one (1) year after the cause of action accrues. Otherwise, such cause of action is permanently barred."

But what if the courts ignore the fact that Mr. Ligeri has forfeited his right to royalties and then ignore the fact that some of the videos he has uploaded are older than one year old? Throughout the years there have been many court cases in which someone has won when clearly they shouldn't have. In this case, it opens the door for not only the collapse of video-sharing websites like YouTube due to all users requesting money for their submissions, but it also puts all websites in which users are allowed to openly participate in jeopardy and opens the door to lawsuits for their profits.

Updated information - Mr. Ligeri has contacted me with his general statement he is sending out to websites and users who have articles related to his lawsuit. This is certainly valid to the article and gives a bit of background information directly from him which is important to not only our readers, but also Mr. Ligeri to ensure the correct information is distributed. I also want to note that after speaking with him, I as well as many others at Neowin, wish him well and lots of luck in his quest against the all-powerful, internet/world consuming Google.

"THIS IS A GENERAL REPLY TO ARTICLES ABOUT BEN LIGERI and HIS CASE AGAINST YOUTUBE.
[...]
My allegations in the Complaint against GooTube range from violations of The Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. 1-7), Theft, Embezzlement, Constructive Fraud, Fraud In the Inducement, Unjust Enrichment, Deception, Bad Faith, Unfair Competition, Unfair Leverage, Restraint of Trade, and Monopilzation, violations of the CAN-SPAM Act and much more.

However, the claim that is most referenced, is the claim that I have against YouTube for their agreement to include me in the Partner Program once I reached a certain number of views and their refusal to do so or answer my inquiries upon my meeting that certain number of views.

That is called BREACH OF CONTRACT. Ask any lawyer. Except for GooTube's:)

I resent this common misguided notion in the blogs that the YouTube Terms of Use control the world and all of its inhabitants. First of all, these Terms are only invocable in allegations against YouTube arising OUT OF the Terms (and that is in the terms too), and have no bearing on other allegations against YouTube for such things as Breach of Contract, as I just mentioned. And the YOUTUBE Terms of Use have absolutely no authority on my claims against Google."

What do you think? Should websites, such as YouTube, pay royalties to people who submit videos? Should all websites pay for all content generated by members? Do websites like Youtube and Google have the right to turn down a member for payments?

Link: YouTube User BennyBaby
Link: YouTube
Link: Feel free to read the lawsuit here
Link: To Contact Ben Ligeri Click Here

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

John McCain: No Net Neutrality

Next Story

Smartphone Is Expected via Google

63 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I feel like I'm in first grade again. The disses are getting more and more pathetic. Why doesn't everyone stop bashing this case and Mr. Ligeri stop trying to get them back. I never said I am fully supporting this case. I'm just sure that if he wrote 100 pages of material than there is a little more to it than what has been posted in the article. If I was Mr. Ligeri I wouldn't post one more response. If you haven't noticed they want you to answer back. It shows them that they got to you.

And the ones who are entering this conversation for the first time (cough C++), be smart. Don't post. Keep your opinions to yourself. Stop threatening eachother too. This is ridiculous (right now I speak on no ones side). I'm suprised a moderator hasn't deleted every comment on here. Both sides need to grow up. And Mr. Ligeri that is not because of your case. I wish you good luck with it. But you should not be responding to these comments. Theres a million forums out there discussing the same thing. Getting back at a few here is not going to do anything.

I will agree with Mr. Ligeri on this though. Your life has to be pretty boring to want to be subpoenaed in court.

And by the way this is the last you'll hear of me here. I don't feel like getting involved in this stupidity. So shoot as many come backs as you'd like.

C++,

The fact that you want to be subpoenaed in court shows how boring your life is. I think you're just envious of the excitement in my daily life. People like you don't realize that your very attacks prove your very jealously and jaundice, your statement is laced with curses and name calling and you don't even know me or any of the facts of the case.

That type of behavior shows 100% motive. If you take an intelligent class in college you'll learn that and you'll rush back here to apologize for your retarded post. Your ignorance is laughable.

If you read comment #24.2 above for a copy of the facts of the case and are continuing to spout ignorance, I've never seen that level of it before, did you happen to notice the article above was amended as well. Soon you'll be the only one YouTube's side.

You tell me what other celebrity you could call "scum" and still get a real response from. Your mom isn't even that real. But you won't get another response from me, unless you apologize and try to redeem yourself.

Over and out,

Ben

Should-have,

when I file my defendant class action against against misleading articles and bloggers, you may very well be in it.

Especially if you don't remove this defamatory post that states such false lies as "unlike Ben who uses other peoples ideas"

I will give you 24 hours to remove it, then it will become an issue for the moderator, then it will become a federal issue.

The court will subpoena your IP to get your name and add you as a party.


Yours,

Ben Ligeri

O wow Should-have that diss hurt. Ouch.(To be honest with you I don't even use Youtube and I am not a video content creator like Mr. Ligeri). I just felt I had to back him on this one. Sorry. I actually had confidence in you that you would not answer back. But you did and that shows me that I got to you.
Go bash another topic. What do you think your going to get out of telling Mr. Ligeri he's stupid. You think he'll quit?

p.s.
Everyone with a plus sign in front of their name seems to be 100% retarded, I'm guessing that they don't even realize that a plus sign isn't part of the 26 alphabet letters used to create a name. Maybe its a blog thing.


LOL. Wow man your the real idiot here the plus sign is for subscribers!!!!

I dont know, these guys seem even younger than that. Should-have you must be 11 or am I incorrect. Younger? I mean he can't be blamed. I don't expect an 11 year old to know much about law.

By the way I am another video content creator who is supporting Mr. Ligeri on this. I am not as popular as him but I do get my share of views.

And Mr. Ligeri, you really think +s or whatever his screen name is works for Google? Someone who worked for Google would probably have the intelligence to comprehend your side. I think he's just a 12 year old whose having fun bothering people like you and bashing topics. He seems like one of those World of Warcraft addicts.

Funny how you are the one acting the ages you are throwing about with the boring insults.

Benny and you are not popular. That is exactly it, not popular like the Youtube celebrities who earned their way to making money (by which the majority created original content, unlike Ben who uses other peoples ideas), so theres the other option - suing.

You might find that suspicious but i've looked over the internet for articles regarding this topic and I found this one so I registered. Anyway I'll use Athernar as an example. He gave a good counter-argument for to this case. Don't just bash it. Give well thought responses if your against it. And G0NADS that is very true most people here minus a few who did respond with a level of intelligence are here to bash.

(Loko123 said @ #22)
Am I the only one who realizes it?

Apparently you also missed the license agreement part. There's simply no legal obligation for Youtube to be paying this guy money for traffic generated. P E R I O D . Nowhere in U.S. law you will find anything to back him up.
YOU failed to realize he's just trying to make money from the system.

I can't see how this has been allowed, the YouTube TOS covers this:

8.2 You retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions, but you are required to grant limited licence rights to YouTube and other Website users. These are described in paragraph 10 of these Terms (Rights you licence).


10. Rights you licence
10.1 When you upload or post a User Submission to YouTube, you grant:

to YouTube, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable licence (with right to sub-licence) to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform that User Submission in connection with the provision of the Services and otherwise in connection with the provision of the Website and YouTube's business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels;
to each user of the Website, a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, licence to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display and perform such User Submissions to the extent permitted by the functionality of the Website and under these Terms.
10.2 The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate when you remove or delete your User Videos from the Website. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable, but are otherwise without prejudice to your ownerships rights, which are retained by you as set out in paragraph 8.2 above.


By my interpretation of this, YouTube has a royalty-free lisence to all of the Plaintiff's videos content.

Royalty-Free:
Royalty-free describes material that may be used for profit, without paying royalties.


Royalties:
Royalties (sometimes, running royalties) are usage-based payments made by one party (the "licensee" ) to another (the "licensor" ) for ongoing use of an asset, sometimes an intellectual property (IP) right.


I think YouTube's TOS is rock-solid in this regard, the only way i can think of is if the validity of the TOS was questioned but that would have must more far-reaching effects.

+PharosBR writes:

"There's simply no legal obligation for Youtube to be paying this guy money for traffic generated. P E R I O D ."

How could you P O S S I B L Y know anything about my contracts with YouTube and Google? The only information you have is from an article based on an article that was based on an article that didn't even get the correct spelling of my name. You are 100% UNinformed. P E R I O D.

Now for the facts.

Here's a few excerpts from the Complaint on US Law.

9.1 GooTube's monopolization of the online entertainment business violates The
Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. 1-7) and other Antitrust law, so much so that it has forced larger
companies to strike inferior deals with GooTube or lose out anyway to GooTube-induced piracy.

.10 GooTube extracts and/or subcontracts and/or hires creative services from artists
such as Plaintiff with the consideration of future consideration (and future promises) which they
don't deliver on. Defendants employ an array of frauds and psychological manipulations to induce
content creation and forced labor and other services on the part of content creatiors such as
Plaintiff, in violation of state and federal law, as well as in violation of state, federal, and
international labor laws.

By the way, induced labor is unlawful, breaking consideration is breach of contract and is unlawful.

Remember,

If you can't come back with rebuttals based in US law, then you can't come back. Your followup arguments will hold 0 validity. Do you understand? If not, ask your fellow bloggers for assistance in understanding.


3.12 ..."YouTube has harnessed technology to willfully infringe copyrights
[and induce labor and content creation from users] on a huge scale, depriving
writers, composers and performers [and other content creators] of the rewards
they are owed for effort and innovation, reducing the incentives of America’s
creative industries, and profiting from the illegal conduct of others as well.
Using the leverage of the Internet, YouTube appropriates the value of creative
content on a massive scale for YouTube’s benefit without payment or license.
YouTube’s brazen disregard of the intellectual property laws fundamentally
threatens not just [Plaintiff], but the economic underpinnings of one of the most
important sectors of the United States economy."


3.13 Essentially, YouTube is the 'Wal-Mart' of entertainment and other video content, but
unlike Wal-Mart, YouTube owns none (by and large) of the merchandise which they sell and reap
the profit from. In fact, they hardly sell it either, they just reap the profit from it. Unpaid artists like
Plaintiff are the owners and predominant salesmen--or traffic aggregators--of the product which
YouTube engorges the revenue from The product in this case: video entertainment/video content.


5.4(b) GooTube's entire business practice is the equivalent of making itself Czar of the
world, taking everyone's land and then appropriating all the land back to everyone equally in
one square-foot lots. And then anyone who is struggling to domesticate themselves on their one
square-foot allotment can pay Czar GooTube an exorbitant fee, and GooTube will give them an
acre's worth of land by pushing an acre's worth of square-foot lot holders into an even smaller area.

4.12 GooTube can't have it both ways. They can't charge $10 dollars to someone, such
as Plaintiff, for the same traffic that GooTube pays Plaintiff nothing for when the traffic is directed
to their websites. Plaintiff contends that this and other conduct by GooTube, in addition to being
grossly unfair, constitutes--among other egregious and unlawful conduct--Theft, Embezzlement,
fraud (including Constructive Fraud and Fraud In the Inducement), Unjust Enrichment, Deception,
and Bad Faith, as well as constitutes Antitrust and other state and federal violations of unfair
competition, Unfair Leverage, Restraint of Trade, and Monopilzation; as well as a breach of
the fiduciary responsibilities that Defendants share--and the inducements they make--with their
users, partners, affiliates, and/or Laborers, of which Plaintiff is one.


Are there enough US Laws in that for you? There's about a dozen violations there.


Yours,

Ben Ligeri

The only man who answers for himself.

p.s.
Everyone with a plus sign in front of their name seems to be 100% retarded, I'm guessing that they don't even realize that a plus sign isn't part of the 26 alphabet letters used to create a name. Maybe its a blog thing.

Maybe you should have thought about this before you used Google and Youtube's servers, bandwidth, and audience for your self-promotion. If you want a piece of the pie, it's time you leased your own bandwidth. No one likes an arrogant opportunistic cheat, and that's what you are, through and through.


Thanks a lot, Loko123.

I don't know you, but I'd like to. You sound like an honest, well-informed person.


Everyone article writer on this topic seems to be spelling my name wrong in the same way, which leads me to believe that all these articles are based on one original source that wasn't correct to begin with, as that source spelt my name wrong and misquoted the allegations.


Yours,

Ben Ligeri

(BenLigeri said @ #23)
Thanks a lot, Loko123.

I don't know you, but I'd like to. You sound like an honest, well-informed person.


Everyone article writer on this topic seems to be spelling my name wrong in the same way, which leads me to believe that all these articles are based on one original source that wasn't correct to begin with, as that source spelt my name wrong and misquoted the allegations.


Yours,

Ben Ligeri


Hmm, Loko123 registers, makes 1 post, then Ben replies 3 minutes later saying he doesn't know them? Smacks of desperation.

Ben, you give up the rights to the videos when you upload them. Get over it, and get a job, freeloader.

"Hmm, Loko123 registers, makes 1 post, then Ben replies 3 minutes later saying he doesn't know them? Smacks of desperation.

Ben, you give up the rights to the videos when you upload them. Get over it, and get a job, freeloader."

+Si_

Clearly you work for Google, I'm just writing to you so others can see that.

And I was on the site all day from noon to 10 at night eastern last night you genius you. Think before you write next time. I'm surprised it took me three minutes to respond. All I did was blog posts on three to four sites for ten hours yesterday.

Another thing, everyone's retracting what they wrote thus far, every article writer has misstated the facts and misspelt my name and have ADS BY GOOGLE on their site, so don't even open your trap until you have at least one fact.

Let me guess, someone prints something on the internet, you take it as the Holy Grail by virtue of it being printed on the internet? That's how you work, huh? So, do me a favor, tell me if there's another person as ignorant as you in the world and I'll pay you money.

You call me Ben like you know me, like you know my private arrangement with YouTube, like you know anything?

You are one big joke.


Yours,

Ben Ligeri

I've seen this type of topic before. People jump on this kind of thread to bash it. You people never look into the actual case. Am I the only one who realizes it?
I've been reading about this case on other sites and I don't agree with any of you. First of all you guys like to believe that the bandwidth is costing Youtube a lot. But it isn't, each unique view on a website is worth 50 cents to a dollar according to GOOGLE. So think of the amount of money Youtube spends on Bandwidth compared to that 50 cents. They might spend a couple of dollars for 1000 views. Of those 1000 people at least 10% went on to view other videos on the site while another 5 went to a page with ad content on it. Of that 5%, 5-10% clicked that ad. These people are generating content for Youtube and getting them extra traffic plus possible ad revenue. Not to mention half of the new users become users. You guys sound very ignorant. Also in another article it stated that Mr. Ligeri got rejected from the Youtube affiliates program! Youtube is not paying users for giving them content yet most other video sites are.

Just a suggestion - Look into the case next time. Don't bash away at Mr. Ligeri because of an article that didn't even interview him.
I'm glad someone finally stood up to Youtube.

Google shouldn't have to pay free loaders like you anything, in fact, they don't anything to anyone. They (Google) are the ones providing a service, a privilege, not a right. They are simply offering a free service for you. What more do you want? You have your own site. You make your own videos. You choose to upload them to Youtube out of the dozens of other video websites.

I hope you loose this case out of principle. You are just fuelled by greed, riding on the backs of other peoples success. You are such a hypocrite as well. You claim that Youtube/Google is making money out of your videos which you voluntary uploaded and you want money for each view yet you have next to nothing in original content in your videos. You can't make your own money so you have to take someone else's.

LASER_ICE,

What do you do that's harder than spending 80 hours a week creating and uploading videos to YouTube for free?

I'll take your job any day of the week over the last two life-draining years of my life on YouTube.


You can watch my five-star video on YouTube about YouTube's fraud if you'd like. Informed YouTube users seem to unanimously agree with me that Google and YouTube are cheating people.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSGFQzDfqW0


Ben Ligeri

Easy way, huh? I'll take your job any day of the week over two years of 80-hour weeks editing people's videos and uploading them to YouTube.

Ben Ligeri

(BenLigeri said @ #17.1)
Easy way, huh? I'll take your job any day of the week over two years of 80-hour weeks editing people's videos and uploading them to YouTube.

Ben Ligeri

Um, then get a new job if you don't like it?

I don't agree for a second that the plantiff and his lawyer have a case but what about this...

YouTube and sites like it earn millions, if not billions, by doing nothing but offering user-created and submitted content to view. Wouldn't it be better if users actually earned royalties based on the number of views (or ratings) their videos get? Spread the wealth. :)

Just a thought...

The thing about YouTube and similar video sharing sites is that it provides a platform in terms of format, popularity, viewer-base and content hosting. Basically, if this guy had gone out there and started a website from scratch and then posted the videos up on that site, as opposed to using YouTube, it is very unlikely his videos would have attained the same level of popularity.

If he wants to claim profits of between 1/9000 to 1/500 of what YouTube rakes in, perhaps he should also consider paying for 1/9000 to 1/500 of YouTube's bandwidth costs (or if you factor in the total costs of providing the "platform", the same proportion of YouTube's total operational costs to date).

That said, I think YouTube and others are already considering the idea of providing video uploaders with a way of making a bit of money from their content.

Its free exposure..that alone is enough. None of these people would have even been a blip on the radar at any other time in history. Its priceless and YouTube should share nothing beyond bandwidth.

Hi, I'm Ben Ligeri, the man this article is about. This article misstates many of the facts, as they also misspell my name. I'm not surprised as to either misstatement from an internet site rehashing some other internet propaganda.

The major misstatement in this article above is that I am not allowed revenue under the YouTube terms of use. This does not take into account separate deals I entered into with YouTube. YouTube has breached contracts with me to pay me. And I am also suing Google for antitrust violations. YouTube also announced that it would share revenue with its highest viewed or "top-drawing performers."

I am much higher viewed than many of the YouTube partners, and under US LAW, that is an unlawful breach of agreed-upon terms to award the highest viewed. YouTube made a public and private agreement with me, and didn't keep to that agreement. It's that simple. It's that black & white. Read the article in the LA Times by Dawn C.

It's true that I get more hits on YouTube, and people know me on the street sometimes, but that doesn't mean much.
You don't think if I spent two years marketing my own website (www.BetterStream.com), which I recently re-launched, that I would've brought an inordinate amount of traffic to BetterStream.com instead of YouTube?

YouTube doesn't bring me my traffic, they don't even list me under search terms that I am identically suited for. My descriptions for my videos register in Yahoo and other search engines and people click to see those videos on YouTube. YouTube doesn't have any special right to Yahoo search results. The two companies are at odds.


ICIE,

I'll pay my bandwidth costs out of my profits. I asked for a banner ad to the right of my videos. This doesn't cost YouTube anything. This area is blank and filled with ads on videos that are from partner accounts. My initial request does not jeopardize YouTube or other video sharing sites, nor does it cost YouTube a dime. My lawsuit, however, does.

People overestimate bandwidth costs. Myspace used to pay 40 cents a gig, YouTube a lot less. Let's use Myspace as an example. Most of my YouTube vids are probably five megabytes. 200 views would cost 40 cents that means. The 19,000 views a day that I'm getting would cost 38 bucks a day. Google would charge me over 100,000 dollars to get 19,000 clicks on the same keywords I'm listed on at YouTube. Take my 38 bucks off the top of the 100,000. I'm okay with that.


Here's the article about me in The Sun Chronicle And my comments below.


Yours,


Ben Ligeri

Garry,

That's a great thought. It makes sense, doesn't it? That the creators of all of YouTube's content might get a fraction of the money they solely generated.

But Google doesn't pay people because they like making billions and billions.

If they were fair and just, they might only make billions, instead of Billions upon Billions. But greed cometh before the fall.


I also have private agreements with YouTube. And in their LA Times article by Dawn C. Chmielewski, they state that they will start paying the highest viewed users.

If they don't do that, and instead pick and choose based on a completely personal criteria that contradicts their announced criteria, don't you think that's just a little unlawful? Maybe just a bit of a breach of contract.


I don't see one defense YouTube could use to my lawsuit. I've won every lawsuit I filed and I have NEVER EVER had a case this strong. This is the strongest case I've ever filed or even read in legal classes.


I also have NO IDEA how YouTube can defend the Viacom lawsuit. If YouTube were to open a tv network and start showing Southpark and MADtv episodes, they would be shut down instantly and sued and lose. But because its the internet, it has to go to court again. What could the judge say, "YouTube, you can continue to steal because you're on the internet" lol

Yours,

Ben Ligeri

the man who is suing YouTube who's name is misspelled in the article above.

here's the real spelling on the court document

Rick Astley is allowed monetization. He has his own banner ad as well an advertisement to the right of his video.

RICK is a PARTNER and RICK doesn't have 1/tenth of MY VIEWS. And I'm NOT a partner.


Read the article in the LA Times by Dawn C. Chmielewski, which quotes YouTube in their announcement to start paying their "top-drawing (most viewed) performers."

Q: START PAYING WHO AGAIN?

A: Most viewed, top drawing.


Oh man, but they're not doing that. Is that legal?

A: No.


Yours,

Ben Ligeri, the man suing YouTube and Google for fraud, failure to pay debts, antitrust, and more.

Email me anytime.

Private lawyers need to be abolished. Court-appointed ones who's sole purpose is to inform you of the laws and help protect you in court and who are paid by the state, not the case or client, are great. It's these money-grubbing ****wads that need to go.

He should not get any royalties. Why have T&C if they're not going to be followed. The only time he should get money is if YouTube specifically says "enter this video and earn cash". That's it.

I'm the guy suing YouTube, but those aren't my clips. Maybe he's suing YouTube too. Anyone on YouTube with a brain should be suing them.

lol The more I read, the louder I laughed. He hasn't got a hope in hell, but I admire his spirit. Anyone who can make me laugh is okay by me.

Wow, people are just so selfish, does the guy even make anything cool? or worth making money on or is it like the billion other stupid video's on you tube of kids doing stupid crap like jumping off their roof or setting themselves on fire by doing something completely retarded?

Whether my videos are "cool" or not is certainly a matter of opinion.

I have an average 4-out-of-5 star rating. But then again, my Halo video gets one star because it makes fun of Halo fans. In fact, a lot of my videos make fun of the fans watching them. Off the internet, my Halo video is one of the most liked.

Most of my good videos are only available on www.BetterStream.com anyway, I only put the TRAILER to my Halo video on YouTube, not the actual video.


Now whether or not they're cool has nothing to do with the the monetization available from 19,000 hits a day.
Howard Stern and Bill O'Reilly make a good percentage of their profits from viewers who HATE their programming, but they tune in anyway. Tune in's are what make money, not opinions.


Ben Ligeri

The guy the article is about who's name is spelt wrong.

ACTUAL CASE INFO.

So, its ok for you to advertise your own content on Youtube for free and direct viewers to your site without having to pay a penny to Youtube for your adverts?

este,

it's kinda funny that you just posted a link to a YouTube video, the rights to the content of which are owned by Viacom. YouTube is making money off of a show that they didn't make, that Viacom made, who is losing money. I hope you think that's unfair? Viacom does, and they're suing YouTube for billions because of it.


Don't get me wrong, I view copyrighted material on YouTube all the time. It's not your fault for viewing it, you don't know who owns what. It's YouTube's fault for allowing it.

(BenLigeri said @ #4.1)
este,

it's kinda funny that you just posted a link to a YouTube video, the rights to the content of which are owned by Viacom. YouTube is making money off of a show that they didn't make, that Viacom made, who is losing money. I hope you think that's unfair? Viacom does, and they're suing YouTube for billions because of it.


Don't get me wrong, I view copyrighted material on YouTube all the time. It's not your fault for viewing it, you don't know who owns what. It's YouTube's fault for allowing it.

And its your fault for uploading your own videos onto Youtube. Youtube is not making any money from copyrighted media uploaded onto the site.

Its ok for you to view copyrighted material but its not ok for Youtube to host your videos, free of charge and donate unlimited amount of bandwidth to you?

You have got to be kidding... can I sue someone for being in my presence too? I mean they could have gotten rich by me being there!!! :nuts:

this is getting rediculas, I seriously hope that guy spends a lot of time in court with a lot of attorney fees only to get nothing...

Although I agree with you, I don't think he will be spending any legal fees. I am sure he has found a lawyer to present his case on a contingency basis, so the lawyer puts up all his time and if they win he gets a hefty portion of the winnings.

In America :)


If he is making this much traffic of his video playing (not so much on youtube.com) but even displaying it on another site (the [youtube] things) should he not be paying google for the additional bandwidth???? lol.. if thats the ball game he wants to play... tosser....

DANIELx714,

BRENT3000,

and all you other doubters,


I call your bluffs.

Or I answer your call of my bluff.


Over the last 30 days, my videos brought 580,000 views to YouTube. That's 19,000 a day.


I'll make a deal with you, since you think it's so easy to make 200 videos over two years, rake in 19,000 views a day, and not make a cent.


You make 200 videos for my website (www.BetterStream.com) and get 19,000 views a day, and I'll pay your bandwidth, I'll give you your own adspace or give you 100 bucks a day. Email me through BetterStream.com if you're interested and I'll draw up the contract right now and you can have your lawyer review it. No porn. Creative content. You own the rights to.


Anyone else want to call my bluff. I'll instantly calls yours. You thin it's easy, do it, and get paid. Or shut up.

Why will I pay you, because traffic is money, 19,000 website hits a day. That's a wet dream to a website owner.


TRAFFIC = MONEY.


Is this everyone's first day online or what?


Yours,

Ben Ligeri

the guy who's name they spelt wrong in the article above.


CASE INFO.

No one is forcing you to upload your videos which you voluntary made onto Youtube. In fact, you are costing Youtube money with your views.

Traffic is money. Youtube is paying for the bandwidth. Bandwidth which they giving to you for free. Youtube are not making any money at all. So, effectively they are doing you a favour.