homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.166.148.189
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 ( [1] 2 > >     
Judge orders Google to turn over records of watched YouTube videos
every video ever watched - records including users' names and IP addresses
Tastatura




msg:3689075
 2:39 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Wired [blog.wired.com] article.
Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, to Viacom, which is suing Google for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube, a judge ruled Wednesday.

Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as "speculative" and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives.

The order also requires Google to turn over copies of all videos that it has taken down for any reason.

Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema.

Those requests were denied in whole, except that Google will have to turn over data about how often each private video has been watched and by how many persons.

Judge's ruling [PDF] [blog.wired.com...]

It will be interesting to see if G will be able to fight this further, and what kind of a president it will set

 

topgogogo




msg:3689135
 4:00 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

yes? what an iteresting matter!
I think google must be able to fight this matter in future.

pageoneresults




msg:3689136
 4:02 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Tastatura, bravo, that appears to be somewhat "Gearth Shattering" news. I read through half of the lawsuit and the numbers they are throwing about are quite large. Google search code development consists of over 1,000 "Man Years". Whew! Valued at over $150 billion dollars? Oh my. Those lawsuits are usually rather revealing. Just like reading Google Patents if you ask me. ;)

Is it possible that this is the straw that...?

walkman




msg:3689142
 4:16 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

ouch. Google will have to settle now, unless they win on appeal.

Discovery is usually intrusive to force a settlement, but then dozens of other media companies might sue. Sucks to be Google for this suit

Clark




msg:3689147
 4:36 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

I hope they use recycled paper when they hand over the paperwork ;)

blaze




msg:3689151
 4:46 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Yikes

[edited by: blaze at 4:48 am (utc) on July 3, 2008]

blaze




msg:3689152
 4:47 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

To be fair, you can get all this information from scraping their website.

zett




msg:3689161
 5:06 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Hoorah!

It's getting messy for Big G. They have not only to turn over the log files, but also copies of the videos that were available but have been removed for whatever reason. Ouch. That one hurts. - IF Youtube has removed big chunks of videos owned by Viacom or by other IP holders WITHOUT having received a matching takedown notice (i.e. they took down the video "on their own"), then they have been actively monitoring the content and are probably not protected by the DMCA.

Add the logfiles, and Viacom can determine the REAL amount of infringing activity that goes on and has been going on. If I remember correctly, the case is about 150,000 videos that Viacom identified and where they have sent takedown notices. They always claimed that these were the videos they could find, but there must have been many more.

Both grants will make Viacom's case look even brighter than it is right now.

Good bye, Youtube.

incrediBILL




msg:3689170
 5:20 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Maybe the truth is Google already knows the answer and the user contributed stuff is way more popular and Viacom is just pounding sand. Truthfully, I've never watched any Viacom material on Youtube and I've seen a bunch of videos so who knows.

Let's see how it shakes out ;)

rise2it




msg:3689198
 6:34 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

What exactly is Viacom losing out on?

I don't think they're going to lose sales of much to 30 second videoclips that play in a 3 inch window.

Oh, wait....I get it...someone looks at a rock video from 1984, and Viacom thinks they're losing money because that person won't pay $20 for a DVD with 3 decades old low-quality music videos on it.

callivert




msg:3689220
 7:23 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

What exactly is Viacom losing out on?

Several years ago, I wrote some science fiction short stories and a children's book. I also dabbled in art. Now it languishes in dusty corners of my parents house, and backwaters of my hard drive.

At one time, I thought I might get some of that stuff published so I sent a couple of stories away, but didn't really promote it hard. I have no intention of making money off those stories any more. I've moved on to other things, other endeavours.

Now, suppose someone finds an old copy of my stuff and mails it to a friend in the publishing industry. Let's call that publishing guy Mister G. Mister G publishes my stories and makes some money on them. he acknowledges that I wrote them originally but never asks for my permission and never pays me a dime.

When I contact Mister G to complain he says "you weren't making any money off your stories anyway. So therefore you didn't lose money from me doing this."

What did I lose? You decide.

zett




msg:3689234
 8:08 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

What exactly is Viacom losing out on?

This is the heated debate over Youtube since even before Viacom took it to the court.

There are the "free lunch" fanboys who argue that no harm is done, and that it's all promotion for the rights owners, and that Viacom should be happy, yada yada yada.

And then there are the "copyright" fanboys who argue that the producer paid for the production of the material, protected by internationla copyright laws, and that the producer should have the ultimate say in where the works appear, how/if they are monetized, and receive a financial benefit from the work.

I am a "copyright fanboy" for two reasons.

First, if Google wins, any content item that can be digitized will lose its value immediately after being released. It will just take some time for it to appear on the Internet, and on some "user generated content" platform. This will seriously impact the willingness (and ability) of content producers to produce high-quality content (whatever that is). When content producers retire and stop producing content just because the longterm value of their work disappeared, then the void will be filled by mediocre content from users, like shaky mobile phone videos showing teenagers telling bad jokes.

Second, as a copyright holder myself (not as big as Viacom, though) I would like to see my rights protected in the future. It's as simple as that. I want to be able to monetize my IP rights in the future. There is no point in allowing "user generated content" platforms like Youtube, Flickr, Scribd, to name just a few, to display copyright protected content.

Needless to say, I would like to see Viacom winning this one.

creeking




msg:3689253
 8:23 am on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

IPs can be matched with videos watched (and uploaded).

that information can be used just like AOL's search history data was used.

personal interests can be exposed.

aksival




msg:3689330
 12:49 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

I think we're all missing the point here. I don't champion copyright infringement, however I also don't champion the judge's decision that YouTube is responsible for these infringements.

This is, indeed, user-generated content, and the terms & conditions should explicitly state that individuals who upload copyrighted material without permission will be held responsible for such actions. Turn their names over to Viacom, not the company that has spent countless hours and dollars on removing this content and developing software to prevent it.

Of course, this would require some sort of legal agreement (and probably an age verification process) which would mean millions of tweens wouldn't be able to upload their videos on their own...my suggestion: have the parents sign the agreement and take the responsibility for their kids' actions.

StoutFiles




msg:3689332
 12:56 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Turn their names over to Viacom, not the company that has spent countless hours and dollars on removing this content and developing software to prevent it.

So Viacom should track down thousands of people, most of them not even in the U.S., and expect money from them when most won't have it? Not only that, this idea would let Google keep putting Viacom videos on their site!

You kill the problem at the source. If you go after YouTube, you get paid and you keep your videos off of YouTube for good.

aksival




msg:3689343
 1:08 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

If there were a valid way to legally hold these people responsible then yes, let Viacom go after them individually. The [initially] high numbers of people affected would set the example for others, who would quickly realize that there ARE consequences. By not targeting them individually, they are still running free by uploading whatever they want with little to no consequences.

If a man shoots and kills 30 people, do you put him in jail or do you hunt down Smith & Wesson? The source in this case is not YouTube, it's the people [ab]using YouTube's service.

zett




msg:3689378
 1:52 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

The source in this case is not YouTube, it's the people [ab]using YouTube's service.

Youtube may have been built with the (good) intention to provide a simple solution to host videos that have been generated by users. This was successfully done.

But that intention was quickly replaced with the intention to become the biggest video host on the Internet. Again, successfully done.

The founders (and later, Google) just looked away when they realized that the success of the site was NOT powered by shaky videos of teenagers who tell bad jokes, but by cool stuff from TV and DVD. You want a certain dialogue from a TV series? Go Youtube! You want the best bits of SNL? Go Youtube! You want a long forgotten moment from TV that won't be made available by the rights holders? Go Youtube!

Sure, there may be some popular video clips made by users, but again these often make use of copyright protected works (e.g. all those lip-synched music videos).

So, let's face it: Youtube's success has been built mainly upon copyright protected works, not on the unfunny clips from teenagers. Youtube IS the #1 place to get FREE videos.

Should Youtube win, please expect Napster2 to pop up soon. This time disguised as Youtube without the moving image. Then let the users do the infringements, and reap in the benefits by placing short ads before and after a song (all the while looking away, chanting: "What infringement?").

By any possible chance, Youtube can not win this one.

jeyKay




msg:3689380
 1:53 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

If a man shoots and kills 30 people, do you put him in jail or do you hunt down Smith & Wesson? The source in this case is not YouTube, it's the people [ab]using YouTube's service.

True. Plus, don't users have to agree to a terms & conditions that basically frees Google of legal liability as far as what users upload?

I really suck at this legal stuff :(

randle




msg:3689390
 1:59 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Be interesting to see how Google responds to this. One things for sure; they donít like being told what to do.

aksival




msg:3689474
 2:49 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

So, let's face it: Youtube's success has been built mainly upon copyright protected works, not on the unfunny clips from teenagers. Youtube IS the #1 place to get FREE videos.

This is another problem which will solve itself once users are actively held responsible. YouTube's popularity may very well suffer from it, but the best way to fight copyright infringement still stands with the users, in my opinion.

frontpage




msg:3689612
 4:14 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google is Big Brother.

Google keeps track over everyone of your searches, Youtube viewing habits, purchases, Gmail's, website visits, Desktop history.....

Now, Google is turning over this data to a third party.

You have no expectation of privacy with Google.

Look for more services offering anonymity on the internet.

For those who want to rid themselves of Youtube privacy issues:

[youtube.com...]

Brett_Tabke




msg:3689700
 5:19 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

I am getting a kick out the tin foil hat privacy whacks blogging about how this is the end of the internet as we know it. What a bunch of nonsense. Viacom having the data is no different than Google having it. They only wanted the data to confirm what they already know from other sources.

Lets not forget your isp has it as well - and every router in between you and YouTube. I am 14 hops away from YouTube via what looks to be about 5 different companies that control the routers. That means, every time you click on a YouTube video, you have handed that click over to 7 different companies (5 at the router level, YouTube themselves, and then my isp besides). Also, lets not forget that alot of big ISP's (aol, earthlink, BT) run proxy caches that are managed by third parties. Both the third parties and alot of ISP's are more than willing to sell you their logs.

You'd have to be pretty technically naive to think this data was staying only in the hands of YouTube. This is not an assault on privacy - this is the defense of copyright and intellectual property that has been infringed. FanBoys are going to have to learn to deal with it and join the rest of us in 2008 (the quill pen, the 2400 baud modem, and your online privacy are dead).

Ultimately, I hope this gets settled without a blood bath. I would like to see video take off on the web, and YouTube has to be the one to lead.

My only concern here is not one of privacy but liability. Since Viacom has asked for user id's, it is pretty clear they may be teeing up to file law suits against the users doing the repetitive illegal uploading. They could also go after those downloading. This is the same tactic taken by the RIAA in respect to MP3's and illegal music piracy.

StoutFiles




msg:3689743
 5:57 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

If a man shoots and kills 30 people, do you put him in jail or do you hunt down Smith & Wesson? The source in this case is not YouTube, it's the people [ab]using YouTube's service.

"If almost everyone shoots and kills 30 people, do you put them in jail or do you hunt down Smith & Wesson?"

At that point I'd outlaw guns in general.

walkman




msg:3689748
 5:59 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Brett, the problem is a leak and now private IT sleuths have it in a portable drive. Will they make copies, transfer between collegues...etc?.

carguy84




msg:3689765
 6:18 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

So Viacom should track down thousands of people, most of them not even in the U.S., and expect money from them when most won't have it?

Yes.

webdoctor




msg:3689766
 6:18 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Viacom having the data is no different than Google having it. They only wanted the data to confirm what they already know from other sources.

Those of us who are regularly forced to consider the Data Protection Act - especially the bit about not passing personal information to a third party without permission - may have a very different opinion :-)

rj87uk




msg:3689778
 6:37 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)


So Viacom should track down thousands of people, most of them not even in the U.S., and expect money from them when most won't have it?

Yes.

I agree and I don't agree - how would the general public be able to tell whats a "legal" video and a illegal video (ie. viacom ones)?

Yes they should have to pay if for example if there was a pay per view type thing for they videos (no one would bother) however since there are no warnings then no 100% not a chance the end user has to pay.

Google should be the one who has to say listen this video is from viacom and you have to pay to watch it, since they did not then its Google's problem.

I think most of that made sense in my head, not so good with the words.. eek.

pageoneresults




msg:3689795
 6:52 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Is this really any different than what scrapers do to "our" websites? The principle is the same, isn't it? In both instances, the bottom line I$ money.

jimbeetle




msg:3689830
 7:28 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

Those of us who are regularly forced to consider the Data Protection Act - especially the bit about not passing personal information to a third party without permission - may have a very different opinion :-)

I'm supposin' that the privacy policies cover this under things like judge's order, subpoena, the CIA knocked on our door, something along those lines.

aksival




msg:3689853
 7:40 pm on Jul 3, 2008 (gmt 0)

I agree and I don't agree - how would the general public be able to tell whats a "legal" video and a illegal video (ie. viacom ones)?

I think it's pretty safe to say that, if YOU create a video for "You"-tube, then it's a "legal" video. TV shows and Hollywood movies are not. I think it even says in the terms and conditions, if you're not sure, DON'T UPLOAD IT. It's simple. People need to be held personally responsible for their actions, just as they are when the boundaries of cyberspace aren't protecting them (i.e., in the "real" world).

This 39 message thread spans 2 pages: 39 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved