It also sends a warning to people. Upload content you don't own and you might get a knock on your door from a man with a summons.

If Wicked sue Redtube should Redtube do the same?

Doing this after the judge told them to go buy some hard drives might just piss off the judge.

There is another side to this that no one has seen yet. Look on the big porn Tube sites and see the people uploading, some are clearly the owners uploading clips for advertising, some are from people doing a couple and a lot are from people who seem to have nothing better to do than upload hour after hour. Maybe an auto uploader or maybe the owner of the site ripping a members area and using it as uploaded.

To claim it was an independent surfer the owner of the Tube site has to able and ready to prove it was a surfer. Then the copyright holder can sue the uploader. I'm cynical and don't see members up loading hours after hours of porn.

Mark Cuban actually just wrote about this on his blog. Basically he says what Viacom is looking for is proof that Youtube controls the content of their site on their end. they may use porn as this proof. Right now Youtube claims the site is policed by its users. If they find out through these records that Youtube has controlled content by killing porn videos before they even hit then this could cause Youtube to lose its DMCA and they would be fucked.

Also they want this info to prove that copyrighted material is more popular than user created material.

Did you own the content you posted to YouTube?

If your information is on the database and you were violating copyright laws your right of privacy ended right there. Ended by you making the decision to break the law. Privacy laws were never meant to protect criminals. Yes the records contain people who were not viewing or sharing copyright material and these will be ignored. So if you were uploading content you own then you have nothing to worry about.

Must do a search and see what you think of porn Tube sites and the people who upload to them.

Do the math.:error

Legal liability for YouTube viewers
Users of YouTube and other video-sharing sites could face $750 per clip penalties if they have watched a video that was uploaded without the copyright holder's permission.

Copyright infringement in the United States strict liability offense. What this means, is that users are liable when they illegally copy works, even if they're not aware that this is wrong, or that the work is protected by copyright.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-13739_1-993...l?tag=blogFeed

that is pretty extreme to be unworkable... how about if someone uploads a photo to a forum that happens to be copywritten, would all people that open the thread be liable to pay?

That's pretty stupid, a user has no way of knowing who uploaded the content or if the clips are legit or not, for all they know the clips were uploaded by legit copyright holders... .maybe on stolen-copyrighted-videos.com something like that will stick, but certainly not on a mainstream site like youtube...

hahah you're fucking nuts

Rarely have I seen a person as clueless as you.

1. The court system in BOTH CANADA and the US is based on the concept of innocent UNTIL proven guilty.

2. they are not asking for the information of people who are guilty, they are asking for ALL information.

Read the question they are trying to make the arguement between user CREATED content and copyright content.

fair use does in fact mean that user DERIVED content is also NOT a copyright infringement, the question is predisposed that any use of copyright content is an infringement which it is not.

I dont know, I've never been to RedTube. But I go to YouTube quite a bit, mostly checking out guitar videos that people make of themselves playing. Amazing how much you can learn like that.

Taking the records of people does not imply any guilt. They need these records to find out whose guilty and whose innocent. But it's good to know you want to make catching and stopping copyright infringer's as hard as possible. Must go see what you post in threads about stopping pirates. :thumbsup

fiddy:pimp

Not sure but I don't think ignorance of the law was ever an acceptable defense in court. People have a good idea if they are watching home produced content or Viacom content. AND they a pretty good when they post it on GFY if it's home produced or pirated.

Let's face it some here support piracy and the proof is here. They support it and want to see Google do everything they can to keep pirating content. YouTube is built on pirated content, we all know that. So when people flame AFF, Redtube, Megarotic, etc. are they annoyed only when piracy effects their income? When it entertains them they are all for it. What is the word for this???? Begins with a H. :winkwink:

you realize your basically saying i should have a right to violate your right of privacy so i can prove your guilty when i really only have that right when i have proven you are guilty


people have a right to privacy and that should not be superseed for everyone just because some people are using to hide their illegal activity.

better that 9 criminals go free then 1 innocent man goes to jail.




copyright is a conditional monopoly not an absolute one, the difficulties are ones based on that conditional nature. I have a legal right to make a parody using your copyright material, i have a right to use your copyright material to for comentary purposes. Those rights have been established by the original copyright act. Additional fair use right have been established by the court. If you can't make money by and still respect fair use then you should not be producing content.

you should be monitizing the distribution method (product placement, process monitization, etc) rather then trying to fight if you can't see how to get around the problem of respecting fair use and catching the theives rather than arguing to destroy fair use completely.

by the way you might want to read up a bit on it

google requested and got a protective order which would prevent the use of information against the users

since viacomm got around the video privacy act by claiming they were only going to use it to determine the statistical distribution of piracy to user generated.


then google has now "asking Viacom to respect users' privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court's order"

it perfect trap because if viacom refuses they can then appeal the current judges ruling demanding that viacomm prove that the extra information was need for their declared task since if the only reason for that extra (non anonymize information) has no necessary purpose to their analysis it would prove that the request was a fabrication to get around the video privacy act.

thanks a lot for answering my questions about the ruling! good job for google.. again.

and the rest of you . . . Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.

They aren't trying to sue us. They are trying to prove a point.

Um, Napster?
:disgust

Hmm... I have to wonder about that. Google's upload limit -- in terms of size and time-length -- as well as their craptacular flash decoder makes most of their content worthless. I think the folks behind Viacom want the stats for the purposes of marketing their products. That info is worth a lot of pesos, IMHO.

That's not correct, you through a court order, or law enforcement through a warrant, has a right to violate my privacy when they have REASONABLE SUSPICION that I have done something wrong.

And again to reiterate baddog's point (can't believe I'm doing that) there's a limit to what this data can be used for. They're not trying to initiate lawsuits against end users, they're trying to prove a point.

Pointless arguing with him. He wants people to be able to break the law, take food out of our mouths and then hide behind "Rights of Privacy". It's like turkeys promoting Thanksgiving dinners.

As for initiating lawsuits against criminals. Why not?

I can't believe I'm actually getting into a discussion with you, but here goes.

Do you really think that someone who goes to youtube and searches for "funny video" and then gets a results page with say some Chris Rock videos, that he watches and laughs at, and then later it's found out that those videos were there in violation of the owner's copyright...then the person who watched it should be liable for damages?

That's going a bit too far IMO. Also consider how impractical that is. The vast majority of people watching or downloading copyrighted work on the internet are kids, and by kids I mean 12yrs-25yrs old. People with no assets to sue for anyways.

Add to that the fact that the end user really has no idea whether the content was licensed by youtube or not....there are really just too many problems with this scenario, you obviously haven't thought it through.

Setting a precedent against a giant like youtube and maybe even making a statement by going after the biggest uploaders of copyrighted work will be more than enough to stem the tide of this problem.

Since when do Americans care about privacy? Oh yes, you do when you fear it may hurt your wallet.

Viacom is doing the right thing. Keep up the good work.

Hey mother fuckers, you can receive a million dollar settlement for being served a cup that was too hot in a restaurant, and millions can be fined thousands each for downloading Viacom shit. Enjoy!!!! You can mess up with business, business can mess up with you.

Interesting discussion

google spied, that's all :)

the key is the "reasonable suspicion" that you have done something wrong, as it was originally posted that would be the equivalent of me asking for all the bank records at a bank (for every person) because somebody in that bank was laundering money. You have a right to violate the privacy of the person who you have a "reasonable suspicion" of laundering money, you don't have a right to do it for everyone to try and catch that guy.


i was the one who pointed out what they could and could not do with the data BEFORE baddog made his post.

I understand exactly what they can do with the data, i am also smart enough to see the function of googles request. I feared that they would abuse the information because that the SOP of the RIAA/MPAA. Thank god google is smart enough to throw it back at them.
If they try and demand the extra information that proves they are fabricating the statistical evidence arguement to get around the video privacy protection act.