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.

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.

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.

Silly, just plain silly.

I'm not a huge fan of YouTube; videos like these are exactly why.

---

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

"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?

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

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.

I just did. Thank you.

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.