|
|
|
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.
|
|
ikari
Junior Member
|
18. August 2008 @ 18:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ben,
To quote Stan Marsh: "Dude? Really?"
Did you really join this forum and start trashing members? The best way to convince a person to join your cause is NOT by trashing them, even if they trashed you first.
Don't come here and "pound your chest saying that you will take on anyone", thinking that it will convince people. Seriously.
On another note, good luck with your case!!! I do mean it!!
However, I would greatly suggest that you NOT bring this attitude you showed us on aD to the courtroom. Oh, and also remember that everything you say on the internet or in any other type of medium might be used against you! ;-) Lawyers have funny and almost magical ways to turn your actions and words against you.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
18. August 2008 @ 19:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by ikari:
Ben,
To quote Stan Marsh: "Dude? Really?"
Did you really join this forum and start trashing members? The best way to convince a person to join your cause is NOT by trashing them, even if they trashed you first.
Don't come here and "pound your chest saying that you will take on anyone", thinking that it will convince people. Seriously.
On another note, good luck with your case!!! I do mean it!!
However, I would greatly suggest that you NOT bring this attitude you showed us on aD to the courtroom. Oh, and also remember that everything you say on the internet or in any other type of medium might be used against you! ;-) Lawyers have funny and almost magical ways to turn your actions and words against you.
I appreciate your advice, you make a good point. Tell me you wouldn't get a bit emotional if someone wrote a false article about you and everyone on the internet made opinions based on it? If not, I have deep respect for your unnatural calming ability.
But I do present FACTS in support of my points. The article writer's on the net blogging about this incident do NOT present facts. They don't even spell my name right. Goes to show what kind of research they put in.
My facts are not derived by myself either, they are YOUTUBE's facts and YOUTUBE's stats. I would love to post the screenshots from my admin account here.
Thanks again,
Ben Ligeri
p.s. I would testify to what I've said here. But you're right, lawyers will still misstate what I've said. That's their job, unfortunately.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
18. August 2008 @ 19:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
Also,
every article about me suing YouTube must be based on one original article, since everyone misspells my name the same way and misstates the same facts.
What do you make of that?
I must admit, I am new to being blogged about. I see the power of a single misstatement from an original source makes some smaller governments seem powerless.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
18. August 2008 @ 19:12 |
Link to this message
|
|
Also,
every article about me suing YouTube must be based on one original article, since everyone misspells my name the same way and misstates the same facts.
What do you make of that?
I must admit, I am new to being blogged about. I see the power of a single misstatement from an original source makes some smaller governments seem powerless.
|
Senior Member
4 product reviews
|
18. August 2008 @ 20:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ben,dude. Create a forum in the forum sections, then bitch about it there.
i honestly couldn't give a rats ass, what you do. but if you don't like the way YT handle's things go somewhere else, like soapbox or something amateur videos do not revolve around YT.
even if you did sue you wont get anything, i hate YT. i liked it better a long time ago.
if you are the real ben (i highly doubt you are)then you need to realized that there are more assholes in the world than there are people that give a dame.
let people talk about you, good or bad its still grabbing attention to your cause.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
18. August 2008 @ 20:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
DXR88,
point taken, I probably should just ignore all of this.
I find it almost complimentary that you don't believe I'm the real Ben Ligeri, I didn't realize I was famous enough to have impersonators.
If you want confirmation, just visit my website: BetterStream.com and contact me there. You can also contact me on YouTube.com/Bennybaby for verification. But I know you don't care :)
You hate YouTube? Elaborate.
Also, I will note that YouTube made promises to me and in publications, just because their terms don't note them, their terms of use don't invalidate agreements on top. That's what a lot of people are missing. My case isn't going to be easy, of course, but I'd rather have my case than youtube's defense.
|
Staff Member
|
19. August 2008 @ 02:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
The source of the information is linked to in the article, in the second paragraph. Name spelling fixed, if you request corrections its not hard to send me a private message and there are contact e-mails, usually these things aren't sorted in user comments.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
19. August 2008 @ 03:23 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Dela:
The source of the information is linked to in the article, in the second paragraph. Name spelling fixed, if you request corrections its not hard to send me a private message and there are contact e-mails, usually these things aren't sorted in user comments.
Alright, Dela, I will send you a private message for other errors in the article.
Also, it's proper journalism to note an amendment to an article.
Here's what another article writer wrote:
"This article was edited on Aug. 18 to correct the spelling of Mr. Ligeri's name."
I still find it odd that a dozen papers misspelt my name the exact same way, that leads me to the conclusion that all of those articles were based on one mother source that was incorrect to start with. Even correct info. gets twisted in the telephone game, one can only imagine what would happen to info. that is incorrect from the get-go.
If you feel comfortable ratting the mother source, please do. I'm highly interested in this source that everyone goes to.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
19. August 2008 @ 03:29 |
Link to this message
|
I haven't found a way to PM you yet, I'm new to blogs, I'll look a little more. You can email me through http://BetterStream.com or the email on the lawsuit, which is located at http://BetterStream.com/youtubelawsuit -- they say not to put your email in blogs. For SPAM reasons, I don't know if it's true.
//
I wonder if GooTube is the mother source. I find it eery that almost all the sites with an article slanted towards GooTube have Ads by Google or some Google affiliation. It's like a Matrix-level conspiracy monopoly. Will I be able to find a jury not affiliated with Google?
Should companies even be allowed to be this big?
NO. There's federal laws against it. Antitrust, monopoly, unfair leverage, restraint of trade. These are all allegations in my complaint. None of the articles are mentioning my claims against Google, just my claims against YouTube. And so they are invoking the YouTube terms of use, which can't apply at all in my claims against Google.
Does everyone know that Google is being investigated by the federal government for these monopolization allegations in my Complaint?
I'm not the only one on the "wild goose chase"
|
Staff Member
|
19. August 2008 @ 03:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
I sent u a PM, either check your email inbox for a link or go to the mainpage and you'll see the link to the inbox there.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
19. August 2008 @ 03:50 |
Link to this message
|
"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."
Let me state, that I have my videos on YouTube because of the pending lawsuit. I am tempted to go remove them now, but I want the court and jury to see them.
I may set them to private. But I also want the Court to order redirect of my links to YouTube to go to my website, or we're all wasting 20,000 views a day that I generated from two years of hard work.
I was getting 2 to 10 views a day when I started, a comment a month. Now every time I renew my inbox, I have a page of comments. It can be an hour or two a day just reading the comments and removing the SPAM.
And stop relying on the YouTube Terms of Use. You think you can sign away rights in a terms of use? Look up "adhesion contract". I swear only lawyers should be allowed to write articles about lawsuits, otherwise everyone cites things that are irrelevant in court.
If I sign a contract with you that allows me to assault you, that contract is invalid because assault is illegal. Likewise, any term of use that violates any law is therefore illegal or at least inapplicable. Furthermore, any external and supplementary agreements made on top of the terms of use, TRUMPS the terms of use. And many many were made.
"Why not do it for everyone? because YouTube is eating up bandwidth and Google has not figured out how to make money from it."
Wahhhh. Poor Google can't make any money. Those poor guys that went from almost nothing in earnings five years ago to now earn 5 billion a quarter with a stock trading at 500 dollars per share. Wahhhh. I can't even afford a share of poor Google's stock.
This company is soooo smart it actually has people feeling bad for them. Even Exxon isn't that smart because we don't feel bad for their profit. I really admire Google's genius, I really wish they were honest, then we'd be best friends.
If YouTube was a liability, don't you think the STOCK PRICE would be affected? If you're not sure, just nod up and down like a wild animal.
They haven't figured out how to make money??? Well, why not throw a few ads around videos. The old ad tricks works for everyone else.
And why is the reason that YouTube can't allow ads on everyone's videos always that YouTube can't afford it?
It's free!!!
They're not using the space for non-partner accounts. It's a blank space. Put an ad there. DUHHHH. Right? It's a blank space.
I've been on these blogs for 13 hours and it's becoming even clearer than before. But I think I'll go to bed now.
Yours,
Ben Ligeri
p.s. I leave you with one thought to ponder:
GOOGLE vs. ENRON?
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
19. August 2008 @ 03:56 |
Link to this message
|
Dela,
your source of information is communicating with me now about changing some of his information, so I'd like to copy you in on that correspondence. Can you email me your email.
You can contact me with that info. on
http://betterstream.com/user/BenLigeri/
or direct me to find it on this site. I can't find it.
Thanks a lot,
Ben Ligeri
|
Staff Member
|
19. August 2008 @ 04:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
I sent you a Private Message, you can reply to it and tell me of any factual errors with what's the in the piece above and why, and I can change them as is normal practice if something is gotten wrong.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
19. August 2008 @ 04:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
I just did. Thank you.
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
8. September 2008 @ 02:52 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Run4two:
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.
That's why I created BetterStream.com, everyone who signs up is instantly a partner. In fact, you don't even have to submit a video and you're still a partner. You can pay BetterStream.com and have complete customization. Or you can opt into our monetization program and take home 60% of all ads.
Ben Ligeri
the guy this article is about
|
|
BenLigeri
Newbie
|
8. September 2008 @ 02:56 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Run4two:
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.
That's why I created BetterStream.com, everyone who signs up is instantly a partner. In fact, you don't even have to submit a video and you're still a partner. You can pay BetterStream.com and have complete customization. Or you can opt into our monetization program and take home 60% of all ads.
Ben Ligeri
the guy this article is about
p.s. to all of you who question it, I will win the case. There are about a thousand violations of law committed by YouTube and they have maybe one defense to one of them.
|
|
creepyguy
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. November 2008 @ 03:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
OK I've just watched several of this Benny Baby's videos, and I must say most of them were a lot funnier than the comments here would have lead me to expect. I think maybe if the average YouTube user doesn't understand your video, that means you're doing something right, 'cause I've noticed that the typical comment poster on YouTube is somebody with absolutely NO understanding whatsoever of irony, sarcasm, or subtlety. I'm not saying this is true of anybody here, mind you. I'm just saying there are an awful lotta idjits posting comments and uploading clips to that site, and by comparison, Benny Baby's humor is refreshingly smart.
As to this lawsuit thing, I have no opinion. Unless...
Could the whole thing be a massive put-on? I wouldn't be surprised if this dude is acting out some sort of Andy Kaufman-esque performance art piece, with YouTube, Google, their lawyers, and the courts as unwitting, unwilling co-stars.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
24. April 2012 @ 16:53 |
Link to this message
|
|
it would seem that the consensus is that his videos are not on a par that would entitle him to payment.having seen some of them i would have to agree.just because you are flooding youtube with this spam,much in the same way you are flooding this discussion,in no way entitles you to be paid for it.contact some studios and see how your work is received and when they most likely reject it you can sue them too.ive seen your kind of mentality become more and more prevalent in recent years,and to me it seems a sad commentary on our society in general.to come in hear and openly challenge peoples opinion in what only could be considered an opinion thread is not only a fools errand but utterly pointless as well.i think it was really summed up by a previous poster quoting youtubes terms.you dont,in my opinion,have a leg to stand on,making this a frivolous lawsuit at best.if you want to try tearing me to shreds in this discussion,tear away.this is my only addition to this thread.ive said all im going to say on the subject.
|
|
