posted
A few years back Napster was forced to hand over information on its users and the lawsuits went flying. Remember Metallica had the list of a few hundred thousand people that had traded their music? Well, expect the same in the future for those uploading copyrighted material up to YouTube... or possibly those of us who just watch it on YouTube???
Technology: The business and culture of our digital lives, from the L.A. Times
« Around the Web: 7.3.08: Judge kills privacy for YouTube users, Firefox sets record, Carl Icahn might get Yahoo board seats | Main | Delta's new boarding playlist, just in time for the long weekend » Google must hand over YouTube data, judge rules 11:33 AM, July 3, 2008
Raising major concerns among privacy advocates, a federal judge has ordered Google to hand over details about the viewing habits of YouTube users to media giant Viacom.
Colbert_report_jucn2znc The ruling came Wednesday as part of a $1-billion copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Viacom in March 2007 against YouTube and its corporate parent, Google.
Viacom, which runs cable networks such as MTV and Comedy Central as well as the Paramount Pictures movie studio, says it needs the data about how people use the site to show that its copyright-protected material -- such as clips from "South Park" and "The Colbert Report" (pictured) -- was routinely posted and watched.
Viacom vowed to not use the information it receives from YouTube against any users of the video-sharing site. But the ruling immediately prompted an outcry from privacy watchdogs. Google had fought the request for Viacom to gain access to its viewing logs, saying such a measure would invade its users' privacy. U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton in New York disagreed, ordering the Mountain View, Calif., Internet giant to hand over the records, which include log-on names and Internet protocol addresses -- the unique identifier for computers and other Web-connected devices. In most cases, Viacom would need the help of an Internet service provider to identify individuals.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation described the ruling as a "setback to privacy rights" that "threatens to expose deeply private information." The group said the ruling would "allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube," and it urged Viacom "to back off this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users."
In a statement, the entertainment giant said it did not ask for nor would it obtain "any personally identifiable information of any user."
"Any information that we or our outside advisors obtain -- which will not include personally identifiable information -- will be used exclusively for the purpose of proving our case against YouTube and Google, will be handled subject to a court protective order and in a highly confidential manner," the New York-based company said.
Viacom general counsel Michael Fricklas said "unequivocally that this information will not be used" for the purpose of trying to find the identities of people who uploaded copyrighted Viacom clips to YouTube.
Google has denied that YouTube infringes copyright, saying that it removes illegal material once notified, in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Google senior litigation counsel Catherine Lacavera said the company was asking Viacom to respect YouTube users' privacy and to allow YouTube to "anonymize the logs before producing them under the court's order." Fricklas said Viacom was considering the request to render the data anonymous.
Viacom had also asked that Google be forced to disclose YouTube's source code to reveal how the site works, but the judge denied that request.
"YouTube should not be made to place this vital asset in hazard merely to allay speculation," Stanton said.
posted
Pretty disturbing. You may want to consider reposting this on the main page. Its obviously not directly related to feet, but I think you'll increase the chances that more people will see this important post.
Posts: 229 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm 100% for complete internet privacy, and am against this ruling, but consider a slightly different situation:
The internet is a public forum. If someone commits a crime in public (like posting a clip of child abuse, i.e. the flying baby youtube clip) is it ok to use the information they electively put into the public forum, get a warrant, and then track them down? I think yes, so long as they do the whole warrant thing just like they'd do outside of cyberspace.
I'm very interested in any arguments for or against.
The irony of the Viacom case is that most of Colbert and all of South Park is already available free and legal through their sites.
This leads me to believe they are less interested in slamming individual unloaders and more interested in getting a whole lot of market research from youtube without having to do the work themselves. I kind of think this is even worse than slamming individual users. If an individual infringes upon their copyright, then that's pretty cut and dry and they're allowed to protect it. I don't see what right they have to youtube's data without doing any work themselves, a thing that potentially has enormous market value under the right kind of analysis.
Posts: 639 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
bluetoelover
unregistered
posted
My buddy I just found out got a cease and desist letter about 5 months ago in regards to downloading bit torrents...I'd shit my pants if I got one!
IP: Logged |
posted
I think watching copyrighted material on YouTube differs from downloading illegal music...when you watch the videos on YouTube, they are not your property unless you have Tube Tv and download copyrighted material...in that case I can understand it and until then it is YouTube's responsibility for hosting copyrighted material and them [or Google] shall be held fully responsible.
-------------------- If feet are your bottom line, you're gonna get trampled...if women are your bottom line, you're gonna get lovestruck!
posted
I have noticed also that a lot of record companies are launching their music videos to YouTube so there'd definitely be no pressure for watching
Only thing is, how the hell is iTunes surviving selling the videos for $1.49 to $1.99 a download, when you can stream them for free at YouTube by the companies themselves. Of course there is a difference between downloading and streaming in a time where music videos are suffering in popularity.
-------------------- If feet are your bottom line, you're gonna get trampled...if women are your bottom line, you're gonna get lovestruck!
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
