Forum Moderators: goodroi
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
People downing loading movie sniplets today off of utube, are just like the people that used a cassette recorder 20 years ago to record their favorite song off the radio to play in their car and just like the people that used a VCR to record their favorite move off of the television. If we are not careful, after this law suit, another one may follow that has the law kicking in your door to sieze that CD recorder you own.
Today, we have a new breed of corporate leaders. You know them, they are the Enron type. I like to call them corporate cannibals; and like the meat eaters they are, they want to squeeze the american consumer for every last drop of blood.
The way i look at it, Utube is FREE advertising for their movies and the Judge should factor that fact into any decision. The same with music. They are getting free advertising too. One kid DL's a song and takes it to school on their Ipod. 10 other kids hear it and go buy the CD. Same with the Utube sniplets. Alot of folks will see the video and like it so much they will go buy the entire version.
So the movie companies as well as the record companies are saving billions in advertising dollars which they should pay to Utube and Napster.
If google was smart, they would sue Viacom back for advertising their products so well.
welcome to Webmasterworld.
Frankly, I believe you are not on top of the discussion here.
Google/Youtube is also motivated by corporate greed. They want to make money off other people's content without giving the rightful owner full control over the way their content is being displayed.
Do you really (really) believe that the Googlers are "do gooders"? That these corporate leaders are ANY different from the suits sitting at Viacom?
Anyway, it's not your decision how Viacom's content is being used, It's not Google's decision either. And it's not the individual user's decision. It's solely Viacoms decision whether or not a clip on Youtube can be displayed. That some think it is "free advertising" does not matter.
BTW, I do not believe that the kids at school go and BUY the CD. They just take the copy from the kid that brings it to school. Otherwise we would not hear the complaints from the music industry, right?
BTW, the company is called Youtube.
The way i look at it, Utube is FREE advertising for their movies and the Judge should factor that fact into any decision. The same with music. They are getting free advertising too. One kid DL's a song and takes it to school on their Ipod. 10 other kids hear it and go buy the CD. Same with the Utube sniplets. Alot of folks will see the video and like it so much they will go buy the entire version.
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.
Sure your data flows through multiple routers and ISP's; but how many of them are collecting your medical records, internet surfing habits, emails, downloads, photographs of your home, Desktop activities into a centralized database drilled down to the individual user and never delete their logs? Then there's the "Dynamic Advertising Reporting & Targeting" (DART)advanced profiling system.
The only internet company to rate a "Hostile to Privacy" by Privacy International is Google.
"In summary, Google's specific privacy failures include, but are by no means limited to:
* Google account holders that regularly use even a few of Google's services must accept that the company retains a large quantity of information about that user, often for an unstated or indefinite length of time, without clear limitation on subsequent use or disclosure, and without an opportunity to delete or withdraw personal data even if the user wishes to terminate the service.
* Google maintains records of all search strings and the associated IP-addresses and time stamps for at least 18 to 24 months and does not provide users with an expungement option. While it is true that many US based companies have not yet established a time frame for retention, there is a prevailing view amongst privacy experts that 18 to 24 months is unacceptable, and possibly unlawful in many parts of the world.
* Google has access to additional personal information, including hobbies, employment, address, and phone number, contained within user profiles in Orkut. Google often maintains these records even after a user has deleted his profile or removed information from Orkut.
* Google collects all search results entered through Google Toolbar and identifies all Google Toolbar users with a unique cookie that allows Google to track the user's web movement.17 Google does not indicate how long the information collected through Google Toolbar is retained, nor does it offer users a data expungement option in connection with the service.
* Google fails to follow generally accepted privacy practices such as the OECD Privacy Guidelines and elements of EU data protection law. As detailed in the EPIC complaint, Google also fails to adopted additional privacy provisions with respect to specific Google services.
* Google logs search queries in a manner that makes them personally identifiable but fails to provide users with the ability to edit or otherwise expunge records of their previous searches.
* Google fails to give users access to log information generated through their interaction with Google Maps, Google Video, Google Talk, Google Reader, Blogger and other services."
I have no qualms about companies protecting their copyright material but warehousing your every move on the internet into perpetuity is creepy and difficult to defend.
I think it's pretty safe to say that, if YOU create a video for "You"-tube, then it's a "legal" video.
Forget about uploading, what about viewing? That's how I understood the original question anyway
TV shows and Hollywood movies are not [legal]
The BBC themselves [uk.youtube.com] upload clips of their content to YouTube. I'm guessing this means it's legal to view those clips :-)
Forget about uploading, what about viewing? That's how I understood the original question anyway
You are correct. In addition to wanting upload records, they want Google's records of what videos you watched as well.
And, every website that embedded the data as well will be revealed too.
"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"
The 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"
One kid DL's a song and takes it to school on their Ipod. 10 other kids hear it and go buy the CD.
Hahaha...who are these stupid kids? You must have meant ten other kids hear it and go download the song.
What exactly is Viacom losing out on?
If someone broke into your home and stole a TV you don't really use, could they go to court and say "well he isn't really losing out on anything"?
