Ownership of YouTube Videos

[upinsmoke]

I was fired from a company due to videos posted at Youtube.
Unknown to me, the company used a program to download the videos I posted. When the company brought the videos to my attention I deleted the YouTube account. Soon after I was terminated.

I brought suit against the company for wrongful termination. Now in the midst of my suit and now undergoing depositions, I discovered the company has copies of my videos. This was news to me.

The downloading of videos is not permitted by Youtubes "Terms of Use" http://www.youtube.com/t/terms

C. You agree not to access User Submissions (defined below) or YouTube Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Website itself, the YouTube Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.

Accessing User Videos for any purpose or in any manner other than Streaming is expressly prohibited. User Videos are made available "as is."

People downloading videos from Youtube are doing so by using a third party software program. Youtube is Flash video only.

So the questions is this;

Since I did not give permission for anyone to download my videos from Youtube and they violated Youtube Terms of Use, by downloading them, Is the company in possession of "stolen property" when presenting them in depositions?

[jk]

violation of terms of use does not mean it is illegal to violate those terms.

What is the basis of your wrongful discharge suit? You do realize Florida is an emplyment at will state where an employer can fire you with any reason, or even nor reason, right?

[upinsmoke]

You do realize Florida is an emplyment at will state where an employer can fire you with any reason, or even nor reason

You might want to rethink that statement.

Age/Sex/Race/Disability/Religion/Reverse Discrimination/

No they can't fire you "At-Will".

"At Will" is a very outdated doctrine. It's inception in 1877 by Woods has had it's roots slowly pulled out over the years by common sense and the judicial system.

http://www.rbs2.com/atwill.htm

Many people today find themselves the victims of an employer due to the propagation of the "At-Will" doctrine that employers have taken advantage of.

It's a totally new ball game in today's modern world. I myself knew of the "At-Will" concept when terminated by knew I would have to fight. It's a doctrine that was "accidentaly" snatched up and found it's way woven into the employement law legal system.

Read - History of At Will - http://www.rbs2.com/atwill.htm#anchor111111

From Wiki;
There are also Statutory exceptions to At-Will. Although all U.S. states have a number of statutory protections for employees, most wrongful termination suits brought under statutory causes of action use the federal anti-discrimination statutes which prohibit firing or refusing to hire an employee because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap status. Other reasons an employer may not use to fire an at-will employee are:
for refusing to commit illegal acts – An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.
family or medical leave – federal law permits most employees to take a leave of absence for specific family or medical problems. An employer is not permitted to fire an employee who takes family or medical leave for a reason outlined in the Family and Medical Leave Act.
not following own termination procedures – often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.

---------

So for those that fear "At Will" STOP! You do have a voice. The courts today realize the ill concieved adoption of At-Will and it's abuse.

If you have been wronged, do 4 things. DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT & then FIGHT BACK.


JK, my case is in Federal Court. The state laws of Florida are irrelevant. My case is based on the above, "not following own termination procedures – often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated." This is at the core of my case. I'm just very concerned that they are trying to admit evidence into the case that was obtained by ill gotten means.

My question is still very vaild even without the YouTube Terms of Use. Is the fact that they copied my videos (property) without my permission a form of theft? Is it stolen property they are submitting?

[BOR]

You might want to rethink that statement.

Age/Sex/Race/Disability/Religion/Reverse Discrimination/

No they can't fire you "At-Will".

"At Will" is a very outdated doctrine. It's inception in 1877 by Woods has had it's roots slowly pulled out over the years by common sense and the judicial system.

http://www.rbs2.com/atwill.htm

Before opening the link, I was assuming you were citing Bishop v. Wood. In that case the USSC ruled a person does not have a "liberty" interest in employment under the DP clause, of course he was a public employee.

Many people today find themselves the victims of an employer due to the propagation of the "At-Will" doctrine that employers have taken advantage of.

It's a totally new ball game in today's modern world. I myself knew of the "At-Will" concept when terminated by knew I would have to fight. It's a doctrine that was "accidentaly" snatched up and found it's way woven into the employement law legal system.

---------

So for those that fear "At Will" STOP! You do have a voice. The courts today realize the ill concieved adoption of At-Will and it's abuse.

If you have been wronged, do 4 things. DOCUMENT DOCUMENT DOCUMENT & then FIGHT BACK.

Not to speak up for jk, but most of us here quite understand the doctrine of at will employment and it's statutory and or common law exceptions. What he means by an at will termination, he also meant there are prohibited reasons for such.

JK, my case is in Federal Court. The state laws of Florida are irrelevant. My case is based on the above, "not following own termination procedures – often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated." This is at the core of my case. I'm just very concerned that they are trying to admit evidence into the case that was obtained by ill gotten means.

*If I may, I would like to also ask what jk did. What is the nature of your action, what causes of actions/counts are you averring*.

If your case is in federal court, there must generally be an original jurisdiction question even if filed in state court and removed successfully.


You say you are in the midst of the suit and depositions are underway, correct?

If I may ask, was a rule 12 dismissal motion filed by the defendant before thier Answer??

My question is still very vaild even without the YouTube Terms of Use. Is the fact that they copied my videos (property) without my permission a form of theft? Is it stolen property they are submitting?

I personally do not know, but if you are handling your case Pro Se and have survived a rule 12 motion, this is not an easy task!!

At one time in my life I also handled my own civil case in Federal court, so I am familiar with the Rules somewhat.

[BOR]

If your case is in federal court, there must generally be an original jurisdiction question even if filed in state court and removed successfully.

Oh, by this, I meant this:


TITLE 28 > PART IV > CHAPTER 85 > § 1331 Federal question

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

[upinsmoke]

BOR,

Alll I can say is that my case is in Federal court for reasons that would preclude one to file a case in Federal court. I can't go into those sorts of details you ask and risk giving too much information. The basis for the termination is at polar opposites of the allegations in my suit.

The defendants have not filed a motion to dismiss. Only a motion to move the venue.

I am not handling the case Pro Se. I don't have the time or resources to. Even though the thought is appealing to be able depos and question them.

I do appreciate both the responses but they aren't really getting at the point of the question. JK did bring up a good point that busting YouTubes policy isn't illegal. However I do feel that a persons video, what ever the content, is personal property. They expressly say this is their Terms and by the way they present the video is flash only. To obtain a copy without permission certainly feels like theft.

I am just curious if there is a leg to stand on that my "property" was taken without permission and is now being used against me by the defendant.

Considering the sneakiness in which the employer gained the material, could actually help my case, when/if presented to a jury. Shows an intent of malice does it not?

In the end I think the fact they copied them a significant length of time prior to giving me notice, will be in my benefit.

[aaron]

Getting the videos from public postings on a public website doesn't seem "sneaky" to me.

[upinsmoke]

Getting the videos from public postings on a public website doesn't seem "sneaky" to me.

Really?

Aaron, I'd like to point out that Youtube is not a public website for the purpose of downloading. They provide no link what so ever to provide visitors or users to download and copy the videos.

So is the general consensus here, that while not illegal and even though against their policy, most people believe that downloading Youtube videos using 3rd party software is not sneaky?

Both quotes from Youtube.

No, currently you can't download our videos to your computer. YouTube's video player is designed to be used within your browser as an Internet experience. As an alternative to downloading, you can temporarily save videos to watch later by adding them to your QuickList. If you'd like to save them more permanently, sign in and click "Save to Favorites" under the videos you'd like to keep.

Accessing User Videos for any purpose or in any manner other than Streaming is expressly prohibited.

For example;
Imagine an audio website that streams audio. It provides songs from artist that want to share in real time their audio. Yet they don't want to taking home the files and sticking them on your Ipod. Or sending them to all your freinds. Yet you use software to gain access to the files to download them on you computer and then do with what you wantn. Is that not "sneaky".

I guess this is the sign of the times and typical of American culture. Today people they believe cause they can do it, they are above reproach and above everyone else. People have this weird sense of entitlement to "stuff" just cause they have a way to access it and take it.

Someone show me where the Download Now button is at Youtube. Cause I must have missed it.

[aaron]

If you have RealPlayer installed, as most people do, the latest versions create a tab on most flash videos to download and save them to your computer. And again, as if this isn't obvious, YouTube is a public site where you chose to post videos and make them available to members of the public.

You can complain all day and all night about how unfair it is that they found and kept your videos. You know what? They could have demanded them through the discovery process anyway. If you and your lawyer want to argue that they're "sneaky" for preserving evidence you intentionally put out to the public, all the more power to you.

[upinsmoke]

If you have RealPlayer installed, as most people do, the latest versions create a tab on most flash videos to download and save them to your computer. And again, as if this isn't obvious, YouTube is a public site where you chose to post videos and make them available to members of the public.

You can complain all day and all night about how unfair it is that they found and kept your videos. You know what? They could have demanded them through the discovery process anyway. If you and your lawyer want to argue that they're "sneaky" for preserving evidence you intentionally put out to the public, all the more power to you.

What on earth does having Real Player installed have to do with the price of rice?

What does someone have to do to get an honest answer out of someone here? Sue!

I'll ask it........again. Is the consensus here that downloading from YouTube is OK?

Aaron
YouTube is a public site where you chose to post videos and make them available to members of the public.

I never made them available for download. The million other users at YouTube don't as well. I'm not sure what part of the concept of stealing you don't get. To produce something via Discovery is far different than to produce something in their manner.

I guess you are of the mindset that just cause a program as the ability to get it, it's OK. Are you saying that all the videos at YouTube are available for download without the owners permission? Please correct me if that's not what you are saying.

Just because they can be demanded through discovery does not make the other act OK. You make it sound like one cancels the other out. Of course I know everything can be found through discovery. That's the right process to follow.

And just in case you all missed it.....again....I'll ask it twice in the same post since some people miss the question.

Is the consensus here that downloading from YouTube is OK?
Does mob rule apply here?

"It's out there and I'm gonna take it if I want to". Everybody quick! Go get Real Player.