Ownership of YouTube Videos

[seniorjudge]

Q: Is the consensus here that downloading from YouTube is OK?

A: Yes.

[upinsmoke]

http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/11/15...-cease-desist/

Very interesting read from the Lawyers of Youtube.

Hi Michael,

I saw your posting today and we’re glad you raised the issue. Here are some thoughts that may help further explain. Currently, YouTube is a streaming-only service. We do not permit users to download the videos we host on our site. We believe our Terms of Use are clear on this point, but in light of the confusion which came to our attention today we are considering revisions to our Terms of Use to avoid any further confusion. It is important to many of our users who have uploaded and licensed content to YouTube that their content is authorized for streaming-only.

If you have any further questions, don’t hesitate to email me.

Best regards,

Zahavah Levine

General Counsel & VP Business Affairs
YouTube, Inc.

[upinsmoke]

Q: Is the consensus here that downloading from YouTube is OK?

A: Yes.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Just wanted to be clear. Thanks.

MOD NOTE: Mind your language. You'll get no further warnings. Thanks.

[cbg]

May I ask a silly question?

What law do you think the employer violated in terming you?

[panther10758]

I have seen youtube pull videos. In the cases I have seen it shoplifting videos which are not owned by the LP. They are owned by the retailer. Posting of them could set up the retailer for Civil action and I believe LP's (in many retailers) are given training that these videos are property of (insert store corp name). The posting of such a video would be a firable offense as I see it.

[LawResearcherMissy]

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?

Whether they are or not is really irrelevant to your termination.

You seem to be asking if them violating YouTube terms of service invalidates your termination.

It does not. It isn't up to you to enforce YouTube's TOS, but rather, up to YouTube. It has absolutely no bearing on your termination.

[LawResearcherMissy]

The posting of such a video would be a firable offense as I see it.

*nod*

Most companies have clearly articulated network usage policies explaining that using company computers and network resources for unauthorized purposes is a fireable offense, and courts have consistently upheld this.

Break the rules, lose your job. Whether your employer violated someone else's rules in the process is irrelevant.

[jk]

You might want to rethink that statement.

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

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

?

No I don't want to "rethink" that. I simply presumed that you were not speaking of discriminatory action. Once past that hurdle, Florida does practice employment at will doctrine.

and "reverse discrimination". That would be, well, simply put, discrimination.

You posted nothing that would lead one to believe any sort of the legally stated limitations would apply so why would I consider them in your situation?

from a later post of yours:

I saw your posting today and we’re glad you raised the issue. Here are some thoughts that may help further explain. Currently, YouTube is a streaming-only service. We do not permit users to download the videos we host on our site. We believe our Terms of Use are clear on this point, but in light of the confusion which came to our attention today we are considering revisions to our Terms of Use to avoid any further confusion

as I said before; just because an action violates a TOS does not make it illegal. You tube can block that persons use of Youtube but that is about it. As to acquiring your vids by "sneaky" means; unless it is illegal, sneaky is allowed in court.

So, what does any of this have to do with your termination? You continue to rant about how the vids were acquired but mention nothing of the actual termination. We have already dispelled your claim of "sneaky" to dissallow the use of the vids as evidence so what else is your burning questions?

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.

Gee, ya think something such as this is relevent? pparently not. Can you show why this would be a federal case, especially since you are posting a state dependant statement which, in most states, an employer is not legally mandated to follow strictly.

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?

already answered, by everybody here. NO. On top of everything else, what is in the videos or who actually produced the videos is critical to your claim. You have not posted anything of such facts.

[cbg]

I would be very interested in seeing a Federal law that requires an employer to follow their disciplinary procedures in 100% of cases. with no exceptions allowed. I am astonished that Federal law would require an employer to go through the entire procedure if an employee was caught red-handed stealing, or committing workplace violence, or is found guilty of sexual harassment. Please post the link that says that. We'd all like to be educated.

[jk]

I would be very interested in seeing a Federal law that requires an employer to follow their disciplinary procedures in 100% of cases. with no exceptions allowed. I am astonished that Federal law would require an employer to go through the entire procedure if an employee was caught red-handed stealing, or committing workplace violence, or is found guilty of sexual harassment. Please post the link that says that. We'd all like to be educated.

You must have missed the OP's post where s/he stated it was all privileged info ?

All 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'm betting we are not among the privileged few.