Judge orders Google to disclose details of YouTube users viewing habits

Mem

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
7,912
Media
0
Likes
54
Points
183
Location
FL
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
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....

A better analogy is that you can go to a book store and read a book for free if you want.
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,792
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
A better analogy is that you can go to a book store and read a book for free if you want.

no... its not better because it is not an analogy about getting stuff for free... its an analogy of the responsibilities of a distributor to the owner of copyrighted material, when it turns out the vendor is distributing material that is infringing on the rights of the owner.


It has already been found that a website allowing folks to post videos is NOT responsible for the fact that some people will post copyrighted materials without authority of the owner.

It is not the distributor's job to vet all materials for copyright infringement...

As in a bookstore... if it turns out some best seller has pictures or prose in it that was appropriated from the copyright holder... the Bookstore can not be held financially liable as that would require the bookstore owner to have perfect prior knowledge of all sources of all materials...


However... the bookstore DOES have a responsibility to assist the holder of copyright in enforcing their rights by revealing the sources of the books on their shelves.


Similarly, Youtube and google, while not criminally responsible for copyright infringement... should have similar responsibility in enforcing copyright law by providing the copyright holder with the sources of the infringing materials.

Or so argue the lawyers of VIACOM.

Frankly... they have a valid point. The only difference between the bookstore scenario and the internet scenario is that books cost a lot of money to produce and so infringers are usually corporate publishers...

Whereas in the internet scenario the publishers are generally individuals.

The fight is over privacy rights versus copyright law.


Does your right to privacy sheild you from discovery of your illegal infringement of copyrights?


THis is the delicate ground on which the entire internet treads... all these issues, so easy to deconstruct in a physical world, become so much more difficult to nail down in a world of pure information without borders.
 

HamYai

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2008
Posts
730
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
Location
UK
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
It's outrageous.

Akin to listening into our phone calls and intercepting/reading and logging the contents of our snail-mail.

Or a conversation we may have in a bar, restaurant or even our own homes and workplaces.

Has anyone ever noticed how difficult it is made to obtain info and they use the "Data Protection Act" but if someone wants info on me/you it is made available under the "Freedom of Information Act".

If ever there were two opposing peices of legislation designed to:

Allow "them" to.......

But:

Block "us" from.......

:mad: