Judge orders Google to disclose details of YouTube users viewing habits

[dong20]

Google ordered to hand over details of YouTube Users' Viewing Habits | Business | Sky News

I heard about this on Wednesday but have not had chance to read it fully ...

"It comes in a copyright infringement case brought last year by media giant Viacom which filed a $1bn lawsuit against the Google-owned video-sharing site.

Viacom, which owns MTV, Paramount Pictures and VH1 among others, demanded Google should hand over information about how people use the site.

It argued that the data would show that copyright-protected material was routinely posted and watched.

Viacom claimed that YouTube willfully infringed its copyright by letting users post clips without permission.

It also wants the data to prove that copyrighted "stolen" material is more popular among YouTube visitors than original "user-generated" material.

A federal judge has now ordered Google to divulge details of every video clip uploaded to the site, along with viewers' YouTube usernames and IP addresses.

An IP address identifies individual computers connected to the web but cannot be linked to a name or address without the help of an internet service provider.

YouTube usernames may identify individuals if people have signed up using their own names.

YouTube, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, argued it does not have to take down those clips until Viacom complains about each and every one.

Google had fought the request on privacy grounds and said it could not easily hand over its viewing logs due to the amount of data they contained.

Google must now turn over all its data about YouTube visitors as well as copies of all clips it has ever taken down."

This from InformationWeek.

"Google has to turn over millions of videos it has removed from the video-sharing site, user login IDs, records showing when users watched videos, their IP addresses, and numbers that identify the videos. The order applies not only to videos watched on YouTube but also to videos embedded on third-party Web sites."

I'm unclear as to the international scope of this ruling. I don't know much about IPR and while he may or may not have have ignored the letter of the VPPA (that legislation pre-date the WWW) I can't help but think Justice Stanton has overreached himself.

Google will undoubtably appeal, at least I hope they do, however (though I'm not conviced it fatally weakens their argument) in doing so they are at some risk of being hoist by their own petard:

"We … are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot.”

The fact that Viacom demanded this information suggests they intend to seek said 'additional information' for the purposes of identification (of whom is unclear), otherwise what use is it? I'm not overly concerned that Viacaom will come knocking at my door; I'm not a big YouTube user nor do I believe any competent case could be made against individuals, I simply don't like the precedent.

There's an interesting Q&A here:

BBC NEWS | Technology | Q&A: Divulging YouTube log

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Stay away from Google. They put a tracking cookie in your computer that wont expire for 30 years. Anyone who has done a google search be aware they no every move you make on the internet.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

Stay away from Google. They put a tracking cookie in your computer that wont expire for 30 years. Anyone who has done a google search be aware they no every move you make on the internet.

Yahoo does it too.

 

[Mr. Snakey]

Yahoo does it too.

I was shocked when i read a article on the bbc about this. Other articles also confirm this. They say a guy from the goverment created it for them.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

Wouldn't surprise me. They are trying to gather all your naked photos. They'll arrest the best looking ones of you, and use you for sex slaves.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Bah - it's napster all over again but on a slightly bigger scale. How the fuck are they going to prosecute individuals.

The way shit is copyrighted and the way that is enforced is going to have to change. This is just a big groaning organisation heaving its way around not knowing what the fuck to do about the workings of a 'new' (ha!) medium like the internet.

Maybe they should upload the clips themselves for a small fee - I'm sure youtube could afford viacom a few pennies per clip from the on-site advertising revenue. Nah - that's be too fucking helpful - let's have a big legal flap instead!!

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

The people they'll get are the ones who have their own links posted with clips under them. Then, if you have joined and are file sharing, they'll get you too.

 

[JC8]

Stay away from Google. They put a tracking cookie in your computer that wont expire for 30 years. Anyone who has done a google search be aware they no every move you make on the internet.

If you aren't using Firefox, with caching off and a prompt to clear history when you close your browser ... well, idk what to tell you.


/1984

 

[Mr. Snakey]

If you aren't using Firefox, with caching off and a prompt to clear history when you close your browser ... well, idk what to tell you.


/1984

I dont care what you have. You have to run spyware to get rid of it also

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

I do run spyware every single week.

 

[HazelGod]

Use Firefox, install the NoScript plugin, and blacklist the google-analytics.com domain.

Problem solved.

 

[Mem]

I'm not worried. It's not like you are stealing and keeping it, you are just watching it. I even have favorites in Youtube and have it set to auto log me in.

 

[marleyisalegend]

Use Firefox, install the NoScript plugin, and blacklist the google-analytics.com domain.

Problem solved.

Is that process fairly simple for the computerally illiterate??

 

[Guy-jin]

Stay away from Google. They put a tracking cookie in your computer that wont expire for 30 years. Anyone who has done a google search be aware they no every move you make on the internet.

Also, put on your tinfoil hat.

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

I am old and ugly. They won't want me. It's you young good looking people they are going to use as slaves.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

It's such a bullshit case.
So many users are on YouTube uploading content, that there's no possible way for them to analyze every single file before it's posted. That is, unless, you want YouTube to hire a content analyzer who has to watch every single submission from beginning to end in order to make sure no "illegal content" has been posted. That's simply not going to happen.

Also, the execs at Viacom needs to get over themselves. If they track the most watched videos on YouTube, they'll find that the majority of them are self made films that have nothing to do with their company. Alanis Morissete's parody of "My Humps". Chris Crocker's "Leave Britney Alone". Not A Rapper's "Read-A-Book" video. Just to name three off the top of my head. None of these belong to Viacom. If people don't care to watch MTV & VH-1 live on TV, what makes them think people want to watch them online via YouTube in even crappier quality?

 

[marleyisalegend]

I am old and ugly. They won't want me. It's you young good looking people they are going to use as slaves.

*sigh* I'm safe!!!

 

[simcha]

*sigh* I'm safe!!!

Me too~!

 

[Phil Ayesho]

This is really much ado about nothing... high courts have largely upheld the notion that A television broadcaster can not get miffy about someone downloading a free clip of a TV show they can watch for free, anyway...

And it has been pretty well established via precedent that a site like youtube can not be held responsible for theft of copyrighted material anymore than a bookstore could be held responsible for some of the books they sell containing plagiarized materials...

But Viacom makes a valid point that in the bookstore scenario, they would have a right to discover from the bookstore owner who they bought the book from....


Viacom wants the IP info so they can determine if, say, 80% of illegal clip uploads are coming from 15 or 20 individuals....

IF they can identify a handful of major abusers, they can proceed with litigation against them as examples...

If however, it turns out that the clips are being uploaded by tens of thousands or millions of individuals then they have no real solution that they can afford.


But they do have to show that they have been monetarily harmed.
For example... you can go to the daily show website and watch all the episodes for free...
Or you can watch them on TV for free...

THey will be hard pressed to prove any material damage from folks copying the videos and posting them...

Their only argument is that they get paid by advertisers on their website on a per hit and per view basis... so their monetary damage from free youtubers is the advertising dollars they lose by those viewers not going to their website.


The accused can effectively argue that the CONTENT is offered for free...and that their re-releasing the content actually benefits Viacom in the form of advertising for their shows... increasing viewer-ship and ratings, which increases revenue.


These last 12 years of republican rule have resulted in a highly capitalized judiciary... where the rights of corporate ownership seem to supersede the constitutional rights of the citizenry.


I say the solution is simple.... boycott the TV shows and movies of any company perpetrating this legal attempts at doing an end run around copyright law.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I say the solution is simple.... boycott the TV shows and movies of any company perpetrating this legal attempts at doing an end run around copyright law.

... and considering we're talking about a corporation that owns networks who show quality programs such as "Hogan Knows Best", "Flavor Of Love" and "The Real World", I don't think that'll be too hard to do.