CCTV1 — broadcast
20261102 200000 UTC
150 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:12:36] During the live broadcast recruitment process, the moving rhetoric. Guaranteed
[00:12:39] basic salary, guaranteed performance, no live broadcast experience required, can be recorded
[00:12:43] . After proposing to terminate the contract, a sudden high penalty for breach of contract
[00:12:47] appeared. If you don't broadcast, if you don't go to work, you have to pay him 800,000 yuan. The streamer
[00:12:51] must pay the company a termination fee when leaving. I
[00:13:55] heard that Yu Yue and the others came to resign. The person in charge of the company, Xu, told
[00:13:58] them that unilaterally terminating the contract was a breach of contract and they would have to bear
[00:14:02] the responsibility for the breach
[00:14:04] .
[00:14:09] Hello everyone, welcome to "Legal View". A few years ago, Yu Yue and Wang Fang agreed
[00:14:13] to join a cultural media company and became online streamers.
[00:14:17] Later, for some reasons, both of them wanted to resign, but
[00:14:21] during the process of terminating their contracts with the company, they had an unpleasant experience with the company.
[00:14:25] The person in charge of the company, Xu, said that if the streamer unilaterally breaches the contract, they
[00:14:29] need to pay a high penalty for breach of contract. Not long after,
[00:14:32] both he and Wang Fang were sued by this company in court. So,
[00:14:36] where did the dispute between the two parties originate, and how will the court ultimately
[00:14:40] rule? On
[00:14:43] a day in February 2021, a recruitment advertisement on a certain
[00:14:47] recruitment website, with "monthly income of 7,000, dual cultivation, pure customer service" in the recruitment information,
[00:14:50] attracted the attention of Yu Yue and Wang Fang. Subsequently, online
[00:15:25] live streaming, mainly featuring talent performances, which means
[00:15:28] singing online and interacting with fans. Income consists of
[00:15:32] a basic salary and live streaming tips, as long as the company's work
[00:15:36] requirements are met.
[00:15:56] One is to broadcast live in the company's dedicated live broadcast room, where the company provides the live broadcast room and equipment. The other is to take
[00:16:00] multiple mobile phones and go back to one's own home to broadcast live. But
[00:16:03] no matter which work mode, it requires completing the agreed
[00:16:07] time, which is no less than eight hours a day. Xu Yue and Wang Fang
[00:16:11] both chose to work from home.
[00:16:26] The actual work was different from what the company's person in charge had promised before.
[00:16:28] However,
[00:18:04] during that period, the People's Court of Qiantang District, Hangzhou City, successively received multiple lawsuits from this cultural media company, requesting streamers to bear liquidated damages. During the litigation process, a cultural media company in Hangzhou
[00:18:08] submitted streamer signing agreements, live broadcast backend data, and loss
[00:18:12] lists and other materials to the court. The cultural media company believes that the relationship between the streamer and
[00:18:16] the company is a cooperative relationship. The company provided streamers with
[00:18:20] venues, training, and live broadcast tools, assigned personnel to them,
[00:18:23] and helped streamers attract traffic. Since six streamers
[00:18:27] stopped live broadcasting during the contract period, it constituted a fundamental breach of contract and
[00:18:31] they should bear the responsibility for the breach . It demanded that these streamers
[00:18:35] pay liquidated damages ranging from 50,000 to 300,000 yuan. In the eyes of Yu Yue and Wang Fang,
[00:18:39] the company did not have any actual investment in them, so
[00:18:43] the huge losses claimed by the company in court were inconsistent with the facts.
[00:18:46] Several other streamers who were sued also successively submitted
[00:18:50] defense statements to the court, stating their respective reasons for defense.
[00:18:53] First,
[00:18:55] the defendant believed that the contract signed with the company at that time
[00:18:59] was an employment contract, not a cooperation agreement. Second,
[00:19:03] these streamers believed that they did not violate
[00:19:07] this.
[00:19:10] During the handling of the case, when the judge reviewed the evidence, an unusual situation caught
[00:19:14] their attention. They found that the original document of this contract, the
[00:19:18] first and last pages, had consistent fonts,
[00:19:22] but for this middle page, that
[00:19:25] is, for the nature of this contract, and this
[00:19:29] penalty clause, then the crucial page, the
[00:19:33] font, including the layout, including this.
[00:19:53] The judge, during his review, found obvious abnormalities in the streamer cooperation agreement.
[00:19:56] So, whether these streamer cooperation agreements could represent
[00:20:00] the true agreement between both parties became a question the court had to
[00:20:04] investigate clearly. As the investigation progressed,
[00:22:45] The Economic Crime Investigation Detachment of the Qiantang District Branch of the Hangzhou Public Security Bureau accepted the case. After that,
[00:22:49] a special task force was immediately established to conduct a comprehensive investigation
[00:22:53] into the case. Through investigation, the police found that
[00:22:56] a certain cultural media limited company in Hangzhou was registered at the end of December 2020.
[00:23:00] The actual controller of this company is Xu, and Xu
[00:23:04] had previously been involved in fraud and had been dealt with by the public security organs.
[00:23:07] He had a criminal record of being dealt with by our public security organs. Moreover,
[00:23:11] at the time of the incident, he was on probation.
[00:23:15] Through a comprehensive investigation of the company's operational situation,
[00:23:19] the police found that this company not only sued
[00:23:23] multiple streamers in the local court, but also filed commercial arbitrations in many
[00:23:27] arbitration institutions. According to statistics, the company has successively sued
[00:23:30] or applied for arbitration for dozens of streamers,
[00:23:34] and the claims are basically the same, all based on streamers breaching contracts,
[00:23:38] demanding payment of liquidated damages. There was a big doubt,
[00:23:42] whether there was a problem with the company, or whether there was a problem with the streamers below.
[00:23:46] In order to fully understand the relevant situation, the police found several
[00:23:50] streamers who were sued, hoping to learn from them about the company's
[00:23:54] operating model, signing process, and breach of contract determination.
[00:23:57] When the advertisement was published, it was "guaranteed minimum wage,
[00:24:01] guaranteed performance, no live streaming experience required, can join immediately." During the
[00:24:05] investigation, streamer Yu Yue recalled to the police handling the case that
[00:24:09] during the interview process, the company's person in charge, Xu, praised his good image,
[00:24:13] temperament, and strong expressive ability, saying that he was exactly the person the company wanted to recruit,
[00:24:17] and urged him to sign the contract quickly.
[00:24:50] This cultural media company has also filed commercial arbitrations in multiple
[00:24:53] arbitration institutions, but most of the cases were closed with the company
[00:24:57] withdrawing its arbitration application. So, what situations
[00:25:01] were hidden behind these arbitration cases? The police then
[00:25:05] found a streamer, Meng Su, who had been sued for arbitration. arbitration, Meng Su.
[00:25:08] Then I accompanied him for two days.
[00:25:11] Looking
[00:25:17] back on this job-seeking experience, Meng Su said it felt like she had fallen
[00:25:20] into a trap set by others from the very beginning. So what did Meng Su
[00:25:24] experience? Meng Su, in her twenties, is from Liaoning and later
[00:25:28] came to Hangzhou to live. Meng Su said that she also saw
[00:25:32] an advertisement online for a media company recruiting game streamers. She decided
[00:25:36] to give it a try and signed a live streaming cooperation agreement
[00:25:40] with the company online. Meng Su had worked for another media company
[00:25:44] before and had quite a bit of equipment. She did not go to this company to work,
[00:25:47] but chose to stream live from her own home. Subsequently, the company sent
[00:25:51] her videos for Meng Su to study on her own and told her that the company
[00:25:55] would train her to become a popular streamer, but
[00:25:59] Meng Su felt that the actual situation was different from what the media company had said.
[00:27:37] However, when it came to our company, this company had no investment in streamers. It completely relied on sending streamers to arbitration to obtain profit.
[00:27:49] The police found that this cultural company was in charge of a person
[00:27:54] and had three other financial managers. The four of them divided the work.
[00:27:58] The police believe that the actions of the four people already constitute a crime.
[00:28:02] He is just a systematic harvester of our
[00:28:06] vast number of young people who are new to society,
[00:28:10] using recruitment as a guise and contracts as tools. On
[00:28:14] August 11, 2022, the Qiantang District Branch of the Hangzhou Public Security Bureau organized police
[00:28:17] forces to arrest the criminal suspects involved in the case. Four criminal
[00:28:21] suspects were all arrested. Subsequently, the police immediately
[00:28:25] launched an interrogation. Xu did not believe that his actions were a crime.
[00:28:29] In this interrogation record, Xu said this:
[00:28:33] "The contracts between me and the streamers are all real and valid, protected by law.
[00:28:36] The company negotiates and sues in accordance with laws and regulations. These
[00:28:40] are all protected by law." This is the interrogation video of suspect
[00:28:43] Luo. Luo was originally responsible for operations
[00:28:47] and managing streamers in the company. Facing the police's questioning,
[00:28:51] he said this: "I didn't participate. I just said I went
[00:28:55] to help him recruit people or something."
[00:28:56] After
[00:29:01] the criminal suspects were brought to justice, they did not believe that their actions were criminal, but
[00:29:04] the police believed that the criminal suspects, under the guise of recruiting streamers, used contracts
[00:29:08] as tools, arbitrarily determined breaches of contract, and then extorted
[00:29:12] money from streamers through litigation or arbitration.
[00:29:16] This has already constituted a crime. Subsequently, the public security organs
[00:29:20] transferred the case to the local procuratorate for review and prosecution.
[00:29:23] The defendants claimed that litigation and arbitration
[00:29:26] were all for employee management. No company would tolerate employees leaving the company
[00:29:30] without authorization.
[00:29:33] The judge comprehensively reviewed the evidence and saw through the appearance to the essence.
[00:29:37] Beware
[00:29:42] of recruitment and signing traps. Today's Legal Talk is currently
[00:29:46] broadcasting. Located
[00:29:49] in the eastern part of Hangzhou, on the south bank of the Qiantang River, it is an important urban area in the eastern expansion of Hangzhou,
[00:29:53] and an important part of the China (Zhejiang) Pilot Free Trade Zone.
[00:29:57] In recent years, live streaming e-commerce, live streaming
[00:30:00] rewards, etc., have become a new trend.
[00:30:32] But in less than a year, this company fell into operational difficulties. Later,
[00:30:36] Xu came up with an unusual way to make money. This is Xu's chat
[00:30:40] record. He clearly told employees, "Our current profit points
[00:30:44] are to recruit people and catch breaches of contract." One is
[00:30:47] to recruit people, and then one is to catch breaches of contract, and then propose a lawsuit
[00:30:51] to make them pay compensation. This is a model to
[00:30:55] achieve the goal of making money. Through the analysis of the evidence,
[00:30:58] the prosecutor found.