| 6:40 pm on Jul 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I could be wrong, but isn't this all Viacom has wanted all along? Just listen to Google spin this story - you'd think they were a bunch of brave young idealists instead of one of the major players in big business...
| 7:26 pm on Jul 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
No Viacom wanted to see who was uploading what and which videos were most popular.
They even stated the other day they wanted to see what Google employees were uploading.
Google just breathed a lot easier.
| 7:54 pm on Jul 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Ah, the Google PR machine is spinning again. Must be a relief to report at least something that =sounds= positive.
But: (1) Viacom is still getting the data it wanted. (2) While Google will anonymize user names and IP addresses of YouTube users, Viacom has has said it never wanted the identities of YouTube users anyway. So it's just Google PR that claims victory. Hoorah!
And by the way, Viacom =still= wants the data from Youtube/Google users (not just uploaders). They need to see what employees did upload, and what they have seen. I can understand that.
| 8:05 pm on Jul 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Relevant quote from the other thread on this topic:
|“Viacom suggested the initiative to anonymize the data, and we have been prepared to accept anonymous information since day one. We hope that Google will turn its focus back to anonymizing the data they are required to deliver, and spend less time making statements about why they won’t get it done.” |
Google's spin on this (and most other things) is getting a little sickening. I'm tired of what seems to be their self-righteous attitude, like they're the only ones who care about principle or Internet users. Google is a company too, and they're out for their bottom line. But because they do it by flaunting every authority they come across, somehow they're respected for it while the companies who are really standing up for principle are somehow turned into the bad guys.
[edited by: MatthewHSE at 8:06 pm (utc) on July 15, 2008]
| 9:37 pm on Jul 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I for one, welcome our new 'Leave britney alone' user data overlords.
| 10:23 pm on Jul 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
>While Google will anonymize user names and IP addresses of YouTube users, Viacom has has said it never wanted the identities of YouTube users anyway. So it's just Google PR that claims victory. Hoorah!
If Viacom had really not asked for what it said it didn't want, the judge wouldn't have written a decision telling them whether they could have what they hadn't asked for. The judge's decision makes Viacom PR out to be alienated from reality.
"We don't care. We don't have to. We're the cable company. We exist solely to make the phone company seem compassionate."
| 11:29 pm on Jul 15, 2008 (gmt 0)|
The judge's order said, in part,
Defendants' "Logging" database contains, for each instance a video is watched, the unique "login ID" of the user who watched it, the time when the user started to watch the video, the internet protocol address other devices connected to the internet use to identify the user's computer ("IP address"), and the identifier for the video. Do Sept. 12, 2007 Dep. 154:8-21 (Kohlmann Decl. Ex. B); Do Decl. ¶ 16. That database (which is stored on live computer hard drives) is the only existing record of how often each video has been viewed during various time periods. Its data can "recreate the number of views for any particular day of a video." Do Dep. 211:16-21.
Plaintiffs seek all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website. Pls.' Mot. 19.
The actual order is at
posted on a site where, understandably, the company using legal strong-arm tactics to harass potential competitors (eagerly trampling all over personal privacy in the process) is called evil; and anyone resisting those tactics is recognized as doing a Good Thing (even if judgment on the doctrine of immaculate conception may be reserved.)
| 10:10 am on Jul 16, 2008 (gmt 0)|
Sad thing is you have to be as big as ViaComm to get attention to web theft of IP carefully crafted and lovingly placed. So says small niche provider of highly original content routinely scrapped world wide. And DCMA only works USA side. The Russians and Chinese merely nod and wink and I'm still screwed. And no YouTube invovled.
| 3:35 am on Jul 18, 2008 (gmt 0)|
I've got a better question for you:
Why is Youtube/Google keeping this information to begin with?
I can understand a 'counter' for many times a video is watched, but why do they need to log and store (for long periods of time/indefinitely) all of this info.
If they didn't CHOOSE to keep it, this wouldn't be an issue now, would it?