Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom

[BusterBunny]

fiddy

[Paul Markham]

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...

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.

[gideongallery]

Taking the records of people does not imply any guilt. They need these records to find out whose guilty and whose innocent.

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.

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.

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.

[gideongallery]

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.

[_Richard_]

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.

[baddog]

What are they going to do sue a bazillion people?

that is obviously a money grabbing technique

they gonna try to sue users for watching clips or try to tally what youtube owes them in royalties for people watching the clips?

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.

[Barefootsies]

PS: Youtube is truly one of the biggest violations of copyright in american history.

Historically there never has been such an operation of flagrant and vast copyright theft. The news and media outlets will be saying that soon.

Um, Napster?

[broots]

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.

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.

[Snake Doctor]

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

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.

[Paul Markham]

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?

[Snake Doctor]

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.

[xmas13]

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

[xmas13]

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

[xmas13]

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.

[D Ghost]

Interesting discussion

[NiftyStats Jenna]

google spied, that's all

[gideongallery]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.