homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.227.41.242
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: Robert Charlton & aakk9999 & brotherhood of lan & goodroi

Google SEO News and Discussion Forum

This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: 41 ( [1] 2 > >     
Google Turns Over User Personal Info to FOX in YouTube 24 Case
Brett_Tabke




msg:3251654
 8:12 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

[eonline.com...]
The studio said Friday that video-sharing Websites YouTube and LiveDigital have complied with a subpoena demanding the identity of the two users who allegedly posted the Emmy-winning drama's four-hour season opener, in its entirety, days before its airdate and nearly simultaneous DVD release.

 

ashear




msg:3251679
 8:35 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Wow that's gotta hurt!

BillyS




msg:3251688
 8:37 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

YouTube = More Problems for Google.

And it's only going to get worse from here folks. Might as well paint a bullseye on the website.

lgn1




msg:3251694
 8:43 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

What are the chances that the posted videos are traced back to a 11 year old kid or an 85 year old grandmother?

I image the cuprits were smart enough, to realize that legal percussions were a sure thing, and left no trail.

moheybee




msg:3251695
 8:46 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Yah, if someone was able to get that ahead of time I'd imagine they'd be smart enough to at least upload it at an internet cafe paying cash. I'm not saying I've ever done anything like that before.

bcolflesh




msg:3251702
 8:54 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

That should actually say:

"...demanding the fake identity of the user or users who allegedly posted..."

Brett_Tabke




msg:3251703
 8:55 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well rats, I am yet again on the other side of the pop opinion here today [webmasterworld.com]. whew.

I think this actually helps Google. Google was not implicated in any wrong doing here - they were just the vehicle. Google comes out of this like a rose and sends a strong signal to YouTube users to shape up, or we will out you. That cuts 99% of the problem out at the source.

Next, G makes all sorts of aggreements with big media to cover the cost of some excesses (read: copyrighted material on YouTube). After that, they will use the RIAA tactics of going after those who knowingly download copyrighted material. This aint one that is keeping Larry and Sergey up at night.

> upload it at an internet cafe paying cash

or just drove around the downtown area of any metropolitan city in the USA larger than 100 people. You will find open WiFi networks everywhere.

youfoundjake




msg:3251733
 9:12 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

or just drove around the downtown area of any metropolitan city in the USA larger than 100 people. You will find open WiFi networks everywhere.

Now now Brett.. surely you aren't suggesting that people make use of unsecured access points to upload videos that are illegal are you? War-driving is a no-no in the eyes of the law. heeh

However, double-clicking on "Available Networks" too fast and "accidently" connecting to a friends' neighbors port is a little more grey.

randle




msg:3251742
 9:16 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Don’t know about anyone else but I am dying to see how the economics play out for Google on the purchase of YouTube. 1.6 billion and the clock is ticking on that, stock layout or not. You really need to get humming with a lay out like that to get to profitability. My monies on them to do it, but your talking about one hell of a lot of adsense clicks.

walkman




msg:3251764
 9:38 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

>> Google comes out of this like a rose and sends a strong signal to YouTube users to shape up, or we will out you. That cuts 99% of the problem out at the source.

:) If they "shape up" say bye bye to Youtube. People go there to see copyrighted material not some idiot who thinks he's famous and rambles for 40 minutes.

On edit: that would also cut almost 99% of the users. Like Napster with amatuer songs.

[edited by: walkman at 9:47 pm (utc) on Feb. 13, 2007]

justageek




msg:3251767
 9:43 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Who cares who did it or if they'll even get caught. The interesting thing here is that Google complied to provide personal information after saying how evil it was to provide even less personal information to the government with the COPA deal. Talk about the power of money!

JAG

outland88




msg:3251789
 10:08 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

To me this is just another example where Google knows its most profitable ventures are vehicles for a whole lot of copyright infringement.

sonny




msg:3251831
 10:38 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

If they "shape up" say bye bye to Youtube. People go there to see copyrighted material not some idiot who thinks he's famous and rambles for 40 minutes.

I agree.
I only go there to see ppv ufc fights 5 minutes after they're over.

iblaine




msg:3251854
 11:07 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

As if there were any doubt that Youtube isn't a vehicle for copyright infringement, check out peekvid. I'm glad someone is holding Google responsible for same standards that the rest of us have to follow...

Chico_Loco




msg:3251870
 11:36 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

The interesting thing here is that Google complied to provide personal information after saying how evil it was to provide even less personal information to the government with the COPA deal. Talk about the power of money!

Oh please!

FOX asked for the information of 2 (TWO) people. The government didn't intially get what the wanted because they wanted an entire chunk of data from everyone over the period of a few months - that didn't even relate to a specific crime (I believe?). That meant yours and mine too! Eventually, they did get some less specific information, if I'm not mistaken.

Two things here: a) Google were completely right in handing over the data and I commend them greatly on this, and; b) Google would have been forced to give over the information anyway considering it was in relation to a specific crime that caused very obvious harm to FOX.

mattg3




msg:3251875
 11:38 pm on Feb 13, 2007 (gmt 0)

Well at least the first step that making videos doesn't go down the (You)tube, as did web content .. where most content is essentially worthless.

trinorthlighting




msg:3251885
 12:14 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google did not turn it over voluntairly, they were ordered by a court. They had no choice.

kaled




msg:3251960
 2:28 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

I don't see a story here. A crime was comitted and Google was to required provide whatever evidence it had in relation to that crime. Across the whole planet, it must happen thousands of times every day. Now, if the two individuals are caught and punished - that might be a story.

Kaled.

BillyS




msg:3251986
 3:11 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Google buying YouTube brought with it two problems:

First, the website is now completely answerable for the actions of their users. We continue to see videos purged or profit sharing agreements struck.

Second, everything Google does smells of corporate America and that smell stinks to those that enjoyed playing at YouTube. By the time they're done with it we're right back to Google Video - which has zero appeal ot YouTubers.

outland88




msg:3252015
 3:37 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Problem is I never hear of Google being proactive with regards to copyright infringement. Google always sit back and collect the proceeds from the infringement never offering to return the monies made off it once reported.

equalm




msg:3252144
 7:06 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)



I don't see a story here. A crime was comitted and Google was to required provide whatever evidence it had in relation to that crime.

I concur that it's as simple as that. They aren't providing their proprietary keys to the kingdom search results information a la AOL. They're just providing the userid's of two individuals who committed a crime in violation of the agreement they signed when they created a YouTube acct.

But of course, the media will have a field day trying to slam google or at least the conspiracy theorists.

George

dmoz24




msg:3252171
 8:11 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

imho google would have provided

1) all account details
2) IP address

the fact that this has been done would reduce youtube's valuation : as a hefty chunk of its visitors is from people wanting copyrighted videos.

Robert Charlton




msg:3252182
 8:31 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

What are the chances that the posted videos are traced back to a 11 year old kid or an 85 year old grandmother?

>>...the identity of the two users who allegedly posted the Emmy-winning drama's four-hour season opener, in its entirety, days before its airdate and nearly simultaneous DVD release....<<

It was a two-hour season opener, not four... but, small details aside, from Fox's point of view, this is not a trivial matter.

First, it's not likely that an 11-year old kid or a grandma would have had access to a video of the season opener. The amount of security around a media event like this is mind-boggling, and I'm going to guess that the security breach was via the DVD. The existence of a site like YouTube now makes simultaneous DVD releases problematic, or at the least much more difficult, and that's a serious business issue, much less for Google than for Fox.

It's inconceivable to me that Google could have done anything but what it did.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 8:35 am (utc) on Feb. 14, 2007]

stef25




msg:3252214
 9:13 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

dont they screen whatever new material is uploaded? i realise there's a hell of a lot of material, but if "24" can be uploaded would it also be possible to upload some underage pr0n? surely if the media discovers that it would hurt them much more than "just" copyrighted material.

Angelis




msg:3252236
 10:06 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

You can call a video whatever you want, you can give it any filename you want and you can apply keywords of whatever you want to any video you upload to YouTube.

There is no way YouTube or Google can screen anything that is uploaded, they have to rely on the community to help them police it. The terms and conditions when you signup clearly state what you can and cant upload. Its not Google's fault if people breach the rules, its the individuals fault and as such good on them for giving Fox the data.

mattg3




msg:3252320
 11:57 am on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

The main problem is that mega sites increase inflation.

If you can only make reasonable money by having overinflated Google SE supported megasites, then the ratio of employee vs contributor becomes so unbalanced that control is lost.

I can reasonably control what my users do, if someone uploads garbage I delete it.

The problem remains everyone is measured by these megasites and they are the only ones really having a meaningful income.

Unless nothing is done against the only successful content business model: Create a platform for an uncontrolable amount of users uploading mostly cr@p or illegal content [MySpace, Youtube, Wikipedia] there is no way the web is going anywhere productive.

Living of free mediocre work with some occasional highlights is the way to go.

Wikipedia employs like two people on millions of pages, no wonder everyone copies it. Content is worthless .. the Youtube hits to employee ratio equally ridicolous ... thanks to Google ...

Producing series of algorithmically supported singularities is the problem.

A better spread of visitors would increase overall web quality significantly.

weeks




msg:3252425
 2:18 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

If they "shape up" say bye bye to Youtube. People go there to see copyrighted material not some idiot who thinks he's famous and rambles for 40 minutes.

I agree.
I only go there to see ppv ufc fights 5 minutes after they're over.

Yep. YouTube wants to be the network, but it's too easy to be a network now. The PPV folks understand that. Those who have the popular content will set up their own network. Now, if YouTube starts producing shows, that's another thing. (Google buys HBO next?)

justageek




msg:3252435
 2:35 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

Oh please!

Maybe you're right. It is far more important to find 2 people posting a 24 episode than it is to try an protect children from porn. What was I thinking?

Google did not turn it over voluntairly, they were ordered by a court. They had no choice.

Ahh...but they did have a choice. They challenged the copa subpoena so they could have done the same with this one.

JAG

outland88




msg:3252697
 7:33 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

>There is no way YouTube or Google can screen anything that is uploaded, they have to rely on the community to help them police it.<

This is inaccurate. There are newer technologies being used commercially that would have stopped the mentioned infringement. Google and You Tube choose not to use them. I wonder why! They choose to place the onus totally on the victims to correct the wrongdoings. They rely on this “lag time” before “exposure and take down” to generate their profits.

lgn1




msg:3252802
 9:15 pm on Feb 14, 2007 (gmt 0)

There are newer technologies being used commercially that would have stopped the mentioned infringement

Its hard enough to stop copyright infringement on a photo, and their are plenty of ways to defeat those.

Hidden digital watermarks may stop the casual violator, but it will not stop the pros.

For a movie, I find it hard to crasp where you would begin on detecting infringment, if the poster is intent of infringing.

Do you have any links to back your claim?

This 41 message thread spans 2 pages: 41 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google SEO News and Discussion
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