|
|
|
YouTube user sues for video traffic revenue
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 16 August, 2008
BennyBaby, an amateur producer of videos he provides for viewing on Google Inc.'s video sharing giant YouTube, has filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for the traffic, and revenue, his videos have provided for the service. BennyBaby, real name Benjamin Ligeri, has produced videos which he claims have generated over 4 million views, with his most successful video clocking up over 400,000 views.
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
ALIS123
Junior Member
|
16. August 2008 @ 05:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
I didn't think anyone would be this stupid but i was wrong. What a fuc***ng moron, like hes ever gonna get money from google. Just get a job like the rest of us.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
susieqbbb
Suspended permanently
|
16. August 2008 @ 05:19 |
Link to this message
|
HEY!!!
I have seen this morons videos which by the way suck and are quite stupid and he expects to get paid for crap.
Wow talk about stupid
|
Junior Member
|
16. August 2008 @ 06:44 |
Link to this message
|
The only money he will see is a court bill, How dare he compare his shit videos to viacom.
Youtube denied your partner ship because Your Videos are shit
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=ImSlpHk9WdQ
Added: 11 February 2008
Views: 173
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. August 2008 @ 06:48
|
|
SProdigy
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
16. August 2008 @ 09:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
I bet he spent the last few months hitting REFRESH on his home PC in order to build up a case!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. August 2008 @ 12:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
All he is saying is that since youtube has ads he wants a cut for his original videos, which is only fair, YT is a drop in the bucket and onthe low end qauilty wise.
|
|
lxfactor
Senior Member
|
16. August 2008 @ 12:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
ever since Google acquired youtube.. they haven't made a profit.. they are still NEG.. so this guy wants money that isn't even there.. with his crappy videos.. gtfo. they denied you because they see no talent..
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. August 2008 @ 13:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by lxfactor:
ever since Google acquired youtube.. they haven't made a profit.. they are still NEG.. so this guy wants money that isn't even there.. with his crappy videos.. gtfo. they denied you because they see no talent..
and that's a bad thing? they have yet to re define how YT works, so as it is now its doomed because the big boys get a cut but not the smaller ones.
I hope he sues and wins, it will keep video hosting sites in check.
|
|
samus250
Junior Member
|
16. August 2008 @ 13:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
At least Youtube doesn't charge him for the traffic his shitty movies generate.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. August 2008 @ 14:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by samus250:
At least Youtube doesn't charge him for the traffic his shitty movies generate.
frankly I'd wish they would and triple the space/quality for them...then YT would be worth while.......
|
Staff Member
|
16. August 2008 @ 16:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
All he is saying is that since youtube has ads he wants a cut for his original videos, which is only fair, YT is a drop in the bucket and onthe low end qauilty wise.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
and that's a bad thing? they have yet to re define how YT works, so as it is now its doomed because the big boys get a cut but not the smaller ones.
I hope he sues and wins, it will keep video hosting sites in check.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
frankly I'd wish they would and triple the space/quality for them...then YT would be worth while.......
I see you really don't like YouTube... or is it Google? ;-)
Anyway, I do think that YouTube is worthwhile, it is simply a matter of knowing what to look for, and it's designed to be used with a web-browser on a wide variety (including crappy) machines with as little steps to being able to use it as possible (just install flash player, which comes up as a download link if you don't have it installed.) Even fairly poor machines (hardware-wise) can use YouTube, so it opens up quit a large library of content to anyone with Internet access.
This guy created and uploaded videos to YouTube, on his channel. YouTube is basically social networking with video, something that wasn't as popular before YouTube because of the scary bandwidth cost. He did so knowing he has to abide by the Terms of Use. Even now, when he is suing for money he is not at all legally entitled to (and his videos have most definitely not earned $1 million for Google, but cost it some money in bandwidth) he STILL has his videos on the service to watch for free.
YouTube is a place where Amateur video creators can (and have) achieved varying levels of recognition due to its large userbase, and that's what the pay off is supposed to be. You don't use YouTube's resources, get a few hundred thousand views and suddenly think you are calling the shots. You still own your videos and you can delete them if you want to try make money from them somehow, but if you leave them there then you have no legal case whatsoever.
It's also not just the big guys who get a piece of the pie. Some big content creators contribute to YouTube so that it can attract more users and get more members (at Google's expense), to basically provide that type of content along with user created content, but there is no criteria which is set in stone to join the YouTube' Partner Program; no special number of subscribers requires or video views to be achieved. The program exists to find people who are very very good at it and provide them with incentive to stay at YouTube.
Why not do it for everyone? because YouTube is eating up bandwidth and Google has not figured out how to make money from it. As far back as last year, the company has been talking about a good goal, which would be a system where a user can place relevant ads on his/her own videos to be shown before or after etc. the idea is there would be differing payments for the ads based on the relevance to the videos, the length of the ad, and whether it is shown before or after a video etc. Unfortunately, while it might sound easy, Google has had no success at all in getting a system like this together yet. Bottom line is, Google can't pay out money it is not earning, and in this particular case, BennyBaby has no leg to stand on, and in my opinion, is recklessly risking the future of not just YouTube, but all similar services, for selfish and greedy reasons (basically put, he knows he relies on YouTube for views of his videos, he needs YouTube infinitely more than YouTube needs him.)
But ye, that's just my opinion, of course :-) And I would like to see amateur online video become more profitable for people (non-porn i mean of course :P), and it will eventually, but its still too early, there are still even bandwidth problems etc. to address).
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. August 2008 @ 16:06
|
|
pieman
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
16. August 2008 @ 16:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
This guy must be a twunt
|
Junior Member
|
16. August 2008 @ 17:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mododaz:
The only money he will see is a court bill, How dare he compare his shit videos to viacom.
Youtube denied your partner ship because Your Videos are shit
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=ImSlpHk9WdQ
Added: 11 February 2008
Views: 173
He pmed and on YT
U left me this comment. What does it mean. How do you know about a lawsuit. And how did you find my worst video - Happy Birthday - to leave it on.
And the vid is a freinds only one, he was embarresed , that he thinks 173 views is gonna got him 1 million$
|
Junior Member
|
16. August 2008 @ 17:16 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
All he is saying is that since youtube has ads he wants a cut for his original videos, which is only fair, YT is a drop in the bucket and onthe low end qauilty wise.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
and that's a bad thing? they have yet to re define how YT works, so as it is now its doomed because the big boys get a cut but not the smaller ones.
I hope he sues and wins, it will keep video hosting sites in check.
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
frankly I'd wish they would and triple the space/quality for them...then YT would be worth while.......
I see you really don't like YouTube... or is it Google? ;-)
Anyway, I do think that YouTube is worthwhile, it is simply a matter of knowing what to look for, and it's designed to be used with a web-browser on a wide variety (including crappy) machines with as little steps to being able to use it as possible (just install flash player, which comes up as a download link if you don't have it installed.) Even fairly poor machines (hardware-wise) can use YouTube, so it opens up quit a large library of content to anyone with Internet access.
This guy created and uploaded videos to YouTube, on his channel. YouTube is basically social networking with video, something that wasn't as popular before YouTube because of the scary bandwidth cost. He did so knowing he has to abide by the Terms of Use. Even now, when he is suing for money he is not at all legally entitled to (and his videos have most definitely not earned $1 million for Google, but cost it some money in bandwidth) he STILL has his videos on the service to watch for free.
YouTube is a place where Amateur video creators can (and have) achieved varying levels of recognition due to its large userbase, and that's what the pay off is supposed to be. You don't use YouTube's resources, get a few hundred thousand views and suddenly think you are calling the shots. You still own your videos and you can delete them if you want to try make money from them somehow, but if you leave them there then you have no legal case whatsoever.
It's also not just the big guys who get a piece of the pie. Some big content creators contribute to YouTube so that it can attract more users and get more members (at Google's expense), to basically provide that type of content along with user created content, but there is no criteria which is set in stone to join the YouTube' Partner Program; no special number of subscribers requires or video views to be achieved. The program exists to find people who are very very good at it and provide them with incentive to stay at YouTube.
Why not do it for everyone? because YouTube is eating up bandwidth and Google has not figured out how to make money from it. As far back as last year, the company has been talking about a good goal, which would be a system where a user can place relevant ads on his/her own videos to be shown before or after etc. the idea is there would be differing payments for the ads based on the relevance to the videos, the length of the ad, and whether it is shown before or after a video etc. Unfortunately, while it might sound easy, Google has had no success at all in getting a system like this together yet. Bottom line is, Google can't pay out money it is not earning, and in this particular case, BennyBaby has no leg to stand on, and in my opinion, is recklessly risking the future of not just YouTube, but all similar services, for selfish and greedy reasons (basically put, he knows he relies on YouTube for views of his videos, he needs YouTube infinitely more than YouTube needs him.)
But ye, that's just my opinion, of course :-) And I would like to see amateur online video become more profitable for people (non-porn i mean of course :P), and it will eventually, but its still too early, there are still even bandwidth problems etc. to address).
He didnt read the Terms
"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"
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. August 2008 @ 19:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
The election process
that be YT mate *lick*
I understand how YT works but for some content YT "shares" ad rev and it should for all the original IP not just the big boy content.
My main 2 complaints with YT is quality, I want better quality and a clarification of CP rights because posting a 3min clip by a still un realsed in the states anime show can not violate CP because there is no valid CP to violate.
|
|
atomicxl
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. August 2008 @ 19:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
All he is saying is that since youtube has ads he wants a cut for his original videos, which is only fair, YT is a drop in the bucket and onthe low end qauilty wise.
I disagree. There is nothing that says YouTube will pay users who put up videos. They offer a program for partners but its just a program offered. Its not a "if you get x plays you're automatically a member". This guy put his videos up knowing this. He isn't owed a penny. Google didn't fool him or do anything even remotely shady.
The quality of content on YouTube has no bearing. He wasn't a partner and only partner's get paid. You don't like it, use megavideo or something.
|
|
Run4two
Junior Member
|
16. August 2008 @ 20:07 |
Link to this message
|
The fact is, is that Youtube provides a service in allowing people to upload material to be shared. There are regulations and provisions, but it is a FREE service. Youtube does an admiral job of monitoring content and getting rid of content that doesn't meet their guidelines. This guy is an @ss and he will lose. I hope that Youtube can get attorney fees and out of pocket expenses paid for. What a tool!
I would stop there but I can't. I can't help but feeling that this hurts all the legitimate cases with people fighting against the MPAA and RIAA. Truly evil organizations that blood suck the poor populace wich it should be reaching to.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
16. August 2008 @ 20:30 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Run4two:
The fact is, is that Youtube provides a service in allowing people to upload material to be shared. There are regulations and provisions, but it is a FREE service. Youtube does an admiral job of monitoring content and getting rid of content that doesn't meet their guidelines. This guy is an @ss and he will lose. I hope that Youtube can get attorney fees and out of pocket expenses paid for. What a tool!
I would stop there but I can't. I can't help but feeling that this hurts all the legitimate cases with people fighting against the MPAA and RIAA. Truly evil organizations that blood suck the poor populace wich it should be reaching to.
tghe trouble is the media mafia is getting a cut so why can not a small guy who is aiding youtube by generating significant traffic with his content get a cut as well?
hell I'd even pay for a yearly subscription for premium content that lets me have better quality uploads and get a cut from the ad rev.
|
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
16. August 2008 @ 20:31 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
2.5 to 3.5 stars out of 5
Wow... Fail... I mean if he made good videos he would at least have something but jeez... they sound like one of those videos you watch and afterwards you wish you had those 7 minutes of your life back.
|
Senior Member
|
18. August 2008 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
omg, he is dumb as hell...i just watched one of his vids and he was like licking a freaking subway card...gay...needless to say, he'll never see one cent.
|
AfterDawn Addict
3 product reviews
|
18. August 2008 @ 12:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Silly, just plain silly.
I'm not a huge fan of YouTube; videos like these are exactly why.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
18. August 2008 @ 13:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ZippyDSM:
All he is saying is that since youtube has ads he wants a cut for his original videos, which is only fair, YT is a drop in the bucket and onthe low end qauilty wise.
Hi, I'm Ben Ligeri (not Legeri as it is mispelled above). I am the man suing YouTube for WELL OVER a million dollars on multiple claims, including the Partner Program fraud. You can email me at the email address on the lawsuit for more information or visit my website www.BetterStream.com and contact me from there.
I apologize for the length of this, there are a lot of misconceptions floating around which I had to rebut with facts. I will try to abridge these statements later.
I have no doubt that many of these hater comments below are from YouTube executives who are EXTREEEEEMELY invested in the outcome of this case.
The fact of the matter is, YouTube broke their agreements with me with respect to the partner program and are liable for damages. They have no defense to my action and incapable of winning without bribing a judge. Despite the fact that the media will attempt to spin my claim into a frivolous lawsuit at the behest of corporate america.
I read an article in the LA Times (by Dawn C. Chmielewski) citing how YouTube agrees to start paying or revenue sharing with its most viewed. Well, I also noticed that my videos were more highly viewed than dozens of others in the partner program. So I applied. They stalled me for 8 months, telling me they'd be "WITH ME SHORTLY"!
And they ultimately denied me for the false reasons mentioned below.
I also noticed that there were other non-partner users with higher views than YouTube partners, which is why my lawsuit also asks for 300 Million (300,000,0000) to be split between the top 9,000 most viewed YouTube users. An award like that could spark the beginning of the end of GooTube's theft and greed.
On my website (www.BetterStream.com), everyone's a partner, and they keep 100% of the revenue from their own ads. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. Not a tiny portion. I don't even allow users to refuse profit sharing. Because in the real world, in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, it is illegal to work for less than 6 dollars an hour. Unless you volunteer TO A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. Google, which posted earnings of over 5 billion last QUARTER, is NOT a non-profit organization.
Back to the partner allegations, all I really wanted from YouTube was the ability to put an ad in the blank space to the left of my videos that are now getting 20K views a day. And the only reason they're still up there is because of the pending lawsuit.
YouTube is wasting that monetization space and instead promoting videos to the right of my video. If someone goes to Yahoo and searches for "I'm Fucking Jimmy Kimmel" and clicks to watch my video on YouTube, then while they're watching my video, instead of seeing an ad, YouTube attempts to redirect MY viewer to other videos by other partners who have LESS VIEWS than I do.
YouTube is therefore stealing my click traffic to advertise other videos with other banner ads and cutting me into NONE of the profit.
Profit which they have agreed and promulgated loudly to share with top viewed users.
There aren't many video sites that siphon your traffic for a cause quite as greedy as GooTube does.
Also, if I were to join Google Adwords and pay Google to direct traffic to MY site under the term "Jimmy Kimmel" or other such terms, I would be charged $10 dollars a CLICK.
I get ZERO a click for sending that SAME traffic to YouTube or Google, but Google gets TEN DOLLARS A CLICK?
Courts don't allow corporations this degree of Contradiction. They don't allow a company to dispute the value of something, to say a click is worth nothing and then charge ten dollars for it. That's called, among other things, bad faith and unclean hands. All Google is doing in every action they take is proving every facet of my case.
Go sign up for Google Adwords and see the costs per click. And try Jimmy Kimmel for fun. My brother has made hundreds of thousands on Yahoo search marketing, he has only lost money every time on Google adwords. I could write for hours and days about Google's dishonesty. I'll stop for a minute to focus on the above...
ARTICLE INACCURACIES:
I have an average 4 out of 5 stars. It says so in the lawsuit and all you have to do is add up each of my stars and divide them by the number of videos. I don't know how this article managed to fudge those stats so thoroughly. But they did spell my name wrong too.
I do ask the article to recheck those stats and publish an update with the accurate stats or risk litigation. Also, anyone can just look at my last 20 videos and you'll see mainly five stars, except for that Spanish video I did very last.
This article also mistakes that I provide my videos for free. The writers of this article have no way of knowing what arrangement I have with YouTube. YouTube has made promises to me in order to get me to upload more videos. And they have broken those promises.
My parody videos have over 4 million views on YouTube across a few accounts that were all applied to the Partner Program. I have higher views, higher ratings, and more subscribers than many of those users who are currently in the partner program.
I was denied from the partner program on two different accounts for two different reasons. On one account (YouTube.com/Bennybaby), I was denied for my content not being "family friendly" enough for advertisers. Well, this is 100% untrue on its face, as YouTube has porn videos in the Partner Program and has 50 Cent who raps about murder and tons of other extremely unfamily friendly content.
You see, YouTube didn't deny me because they didn't like my content, they said only that it was too dirty. Which is a 100% falsehood.
YouTube.com/ProfessorCarlton was also applied to the program and received a denial on the grounds of low viewership.
The Professor Carlton account has over a half a million views itself with just about ten vids. The viewership qualification (found on YouTube.com/partner) states that the viewership requirement is that your vides must be "viewed by thousands", I think hundreds of thousands covers thousands.
The point is, there are people in the partner program who haven't even attained half of Carlton's views. YouTube partner 'grampl' has less than 60K combined views. YouTube partner '20thCFoxMovies' has less than 200,000 combined views and one video. Check the YouTube partner directory.
Hell, pretty much all the facts I need to prove my case are available on YouTube.com. It really makes it easy when the side you're suing provides you with all the facts.
Does anyone else want to try to come over the top of me with some false information? Or does someone have some facts out there that question anything about my ironclad case against the greedy GooTube?
Nobody comes to blogs on their own case. Because I will not be happy after I win the case, I'll only be happy when every real person believes in my case.
I will tear anyone open who so much as slightly challenges the validity of my case against the dirty GooTube. I will do it on tv, I will do it live and uncensored. I will do it in the back of a Panera with no camera. I will not run. I am here to face you. I will meet you, bring your camera if you want. I want everyone who challenged my case to thank me for uncovering a fraudulent company and getting you entertainers the compensation you earned. I will not be the Ralph Nader whipping boy who wipes the asses of the baby boomers and protects their children only to get spat on by their Bush and Gore votes.
It's been a pleasure talking with you all. Feel free to contact me anytime.
Yours,
Ben Ligeri
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
18. August 2008 @ 13:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by venomX05:
omg, he is dumb as hell...i just watched one of his vids and he was like licking a freaking subway card...gay...needless to say, he'll never see one cent.
It's more than hysterically funny that you choose to mock the one video of mine which is a parody of YouTube featured videos.
If you want to get in the ring with me, think before you write. I'll tear you apart like a rabid dog suing YouTube.
Despite my four out of five star rating, it wouldn't matter if all my videos had one star ratings, because how much something is liked is of no consequence to how much money it is worth.
People who hate Bill O'Reilly watch him just as much as those who love him. Same with people who hate Howard Stern. Ads are targeted towards those haters, that's how strong an audience they are. It is viewership that measures everything, especially online.
You could sum up most of what I'm saying into these five words:
"Viewership completely trumps personal opinion."
It's been a pleasure talking to you.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
18. August 2008 @ 15:27 |
Link to this message
|
Additionally,
I challenge YouTube to come onto this blog or state anywhere that what they're doing is fair. To say that it's fair that a user spends years of their life making videos for their site and marketing them and that user gets ZERO percent of the profit. I challenge YouTube to state that.
If they can't, who would defend them beside themselves?
If you're defending YouTube, post a picture, state who you are, prove you don't work for them. Because it isn't realistic that anyone who doesn't work for YouTube would be on YouTube's side.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
18. August 2008 @ 15:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Additionally still,
I only put a few videos on Funnyordie.com (FunnyOrDie.com/TheMusicShow), and FoD puts ads all over my videos. I am not suing Funny Or Die because they never promised revenue sharing.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
18. August 2008 @ 17:47 |
Link to this message
|
Also,
You can all 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.
You can all 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
Yours,
Ben Ligeri
Yours,
Ben Ligeri
|
|
