Google Turns Over User Personal Info to FOX in YouTube 24 Case

[Brett_Tabke]

[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.

[trinorthlighting]

They challenged the copa subpoena so they could have done the same with this one?

Because once their lawyers got the subpoena they knew if they tried to stall the info that fox would sue the living heck out of google.

Also, the copa subpoena is a totally different type of subject. Copa had nothing to due with copywrite and had everything to due with privacy.

[justageek]

Because once their lawyers got the subpoena they knew if they tried to stall the info that fox would sue the living heck out of google.

Yep. That was my original point :-)

Also, the copa subpoena is a totally different type of subject. Copa had nothing to due with copywrite and had everything to due with privacy.

Correct that the subjects were different...but a subpoena is still an order by the court to do something no matter what caused the subpoena to be issued.

JAG

[justageek]

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?

MySpace is using 'Audible Magic'. There are others as well.

JAG

[outland88]

I was reading about three of these programs yesterday who were responding to the "24" incident. They claimed their programs would have stopped this particular incident. It fact it seemed a little mystifying why smaller companies were implementing the technology and You Tube wasn't.

[carguy84]

quote]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.[/quote]
Was going to post the same thing, so pretend I did.

[lgn1]

The problem is, all DRM technology can be defeated, and as a particular DRM technology gains popularity, the greater the chance, that automated tools will be developed to defeat a particular popular DRM technology.

Their is already sites out on the web giving instructions on how to defeat audio magic.

Maybe Google has decided that audio magic or other DRM tools are a waist of time and money, and are not investing in them.

If they don't want copies of 24 showing up on the web before showing up on TV, FOX needs to improve physical location and asset security, not DRM management.

This is like locking the barn door after the horse has already been stolen.

Viacon and the other Media companies, might as well reach agreements with YouTube, as they will never stop the illegal posting of content.

This is the 21st century, and the consumer dictates the direction and control of the market, not the media companies.

[kaled]

Google may not be able to monitor what is uploaded but they can monitor what is most viewed. Any video that is getting a lot of hits should be manually reviewed. If file size was also a factor that would be good too. Thus, assuming that 24 was being downloaded, it should have been flagged for manual review. Thereafter, it should have been deleted and, if possible, the upload and download rights of the poster should have been withdrawn (but, that would be tricky in practice).

Kaled.

[justageek]

Viacon and the other Media companies, might as well reach agreements with YouTube, as they will never stop the illegal posting of content.

There is another option. Have a court shut down YouTube. Sure people will find other ways to distribute videos but it at least keeps YouTube(Google) honest so they can live by the "don't be evil" tag line they use. Seems like an easy enough thing to do for the court and the right and honest thing for Google to do. But I imagine the $1.6B price tag trumps the Google tag line :-/

JAG

[outland88]

> Viacon and the other Media companies, might as well reach agreements with YouTube, as they will never stop the illegal posting of content. <

I would think it is the other way around especially since you have a case like Napster on the books. If attorneys think that these are no more than vehicles for copyright infringement and they were utilizing few controls to stop it they will smell the money. Google and You Tube in turn will cut every “behind the scenes” deal possible to save this behemoth and prevent other lawsuits. IMO if you’re knowledgeable and made aware that your services are being utilized for the illegal distribution of copyrighted content through downloads you’re playing with fire. Especially if you derive monies directly or indirectly from the offerings.

[lgn1]

The big difference, is that Google has money to burn, while Napster didn't.

Viacom is only worth 15-20 billion. Google could just buy them out, if the legal case starts going bad for Google.

[walkman]

>> The big difference, is that Google has money to burn, while Napster didn't.

a fact which only emboldens those who want to sue. You have lawyers who LOVE to take on large corps and teach them a lesson.

Let Goog buy Viacom, News Corp, Time Warner, CBS, NBC and all other media companies. You forgot one thing though: First, I doubt we'll see lawsuits, but if they start, Goog as a stock will go down a LOT.