NEW YORK, July 4, 2008
YouTube Ordered To Reveal Users' Data
Federal Judge Demands Video-Sharing Service Disclose Who Watches Which Video Clips And When
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton authorized full access to the YouTube logs after Viacom Inc. and other copyright holders argued that they needed the data to show whether their copyright-protected videos are more heavily watched than amateur clips.
The data would not be publicly released but disclosed only to the plaintiffs, and it would include less specific identifiers than a user's real name or e-mail address.
Lawyers for Mountain View, Ca.-based Google Inc., which owns YouTube, said producing 12 terabytes of data - equivalent to the text of roughly 12 million books - would be expensive, time-consuming and a threat to users' privacy.
The database includes information on when each video gets played, which can be used to determine how often a clip is viewed. Attached to each entry is each viewer's unique login ID and the Internet Protocol, or IP, address for that viewer's computer.
Stanton ruled this week that the plaintiffs had a legitimate need for the information and that the privacy concerns are speculative.
Stanton rejected a request from the plaintiffs for Google to disclose the source code - the technical secret sauce - powering its market-leading search engine, saying there's no evidence Google manipulated its search algorithms to treat copyright-infringing videos differently.
The court has yet to rule on Google's requests to question comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of Viacom's Comedy Central.
Viacom is seeking at least $1 billion in damages from Google, saying YouTube has built a business by using the Internet to "willfully infringe" copyrights on Viacom shows, which include Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and Nickelodeon's "SpongeBob SquarePants" cartoon.
The lawsuit was combined with a similar case filed by a British soccer league and other parties.
Together, the plaintiffs are trying to prove that YouTube has known of copyright infringement and can do more to stop it, a finding that could dissolve the immunity protections that service providers have when they merely host content submitted by their users.
Though Google said giving the plaintiffs access to YouTube viewer data would threaten users' privacy, Stanton referred to Google's own blog entry in which the company argued that the IP address alone cannot identify a specific individual.
In a statement, Google said it was "disappointed the court granted Viacom's overreaching demand for viewing history. We are asking Viacom to respect users' privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court's order."
Google did not say whether it would appeal the ruling or seek to narrow it.
Stanton's ruling made only passing reference to a 1988 federal law barring the disclosure of specific video materials that subscribers request or obtain.
Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Stanton should have considered that law along with constitutional free-speech rights, including a right to read or view materials anonymously.
He said a user's ID can sometimes include identifying information such as a first initial and last name.
Viacom said it isn't seeking any user's identity. The company said any data provided "will be used exclusively for the purpose of proving our case against YouTube and Google (and) will be handled subject to a court protective order and in a highly confidential manner."
This is not the first time Google has fought the disclosure of user information it had been stockpiling. While gathering evidence for a case involving online pornography, the U.S. Justice Department subpoenaed Google and other search engines for lists of search requests made by their users.
After Google resisted, a federal judge ruled that Google was obliged to turn over only a sample of Web addresses in its search index, not the actual search terms requested.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from SciTech
-
Video
Treating Lou Gehrig's Disease
-
Video
Loaded: Tweetmark
-
Video
Red Faction: Guerrilla - Tactics
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 54 CommentsWho watches that stuff, we can get that on regular TV, we watch you tube for what we can''t get on TV.
This is just more of the same scheme to turn the issue of copyright protection into a license for spying on people.
Here is a tip, every time you learn f a big company suing people for copyright infringement, boycott them until they are forced out of business. It wouldn''t be so bad if they actually paid the content creators, but we all know they don''t.
Who watches that stuff, we can get that on regular TV, we watch you tube for what we can''t get on TV.
This is just more of the same scheme to turn the issue of copyright protection into a license for spying on people.
Here is a tip, every time you learn f a big company suing people for copyright infringement, boycott them until they are forced out of business. It wouldn''t be so bad if they actually paid the content creators, but we all know they don''t.
Why report those who WATCH pirated videos?
Why not prosecute those who UPLOAD them?
***I do not own a television and have not owned one for almost 20 years. So I really should not comment, but I do not like the thought of ''giving up'' someone who does post something they think is funny from a television show to an online site like YouTube and besides... we Americans seem to lose more of OUR Rights day by day and this would just be one more.
Besides... who has the person who posted a funny ''bit'' from a television show harmed? No one. Why should this even be considered coming close to a ''copyright infringement'' when television broadcast is damned near considered Public Domain. PLUS... they splash their commercials ALL over the internet that I pay dearly for and see more commercials nowadays than I read of news articles.
MY vote? NO advertising whatsoever if one pays nearly 70 dollars a month for internet service. How about THAT, eh?
Why not prosecute those who UPLOAD them?
Posted by Inventagod2 at 11:00 AM : Jul 04, 2008
The air ways are controlled and regulated by the FCC for "our" benefit and granted to "users".
Again, why do we need cable?
I remember when the selling point fpr cable was "less" advertising...
Posted by Lucy-in-TX
LOL . . . seriously, I thought in today''s age since everybody tivo''s out commercials it was all about product placement anyway.
Anyway, what do other people watch on Youtube? I mostly watch homemade pet videos and some of those homemade political videos like the ones that make fun of Bush, or like Will.I.am''s stuff for Barack. It''s so easy these days to set the tivo at the start of the series for all your favorite shows, how often is it that there''s a need to turn to YouTube? Every once in a while, but not that often . . .
Posted by IOWEIGN
Yeah, just like Wal-Mart demanding we all buy "american" a few years back. Private profit driven global capitalists cannot be expected to advocate for the defense, safety and posterity of the people of this nation. To do so often is not in the best interest of private business growth, private profits and private shareholders. In private business land, democracy is dead and oligarchs rule. He who owns the most gold rules. Monopoly game over.
i am basin in nigeria,you can reach me throug this no:-08058211628.
Posted by Lucy-in-TX
Why there is so much ignorance or lack of foresight on the part of average working citizens in this country I''ll never understand. When I was a kid and cable started coming up in popularity I knew it was bad news. It was just a matter of time when all it would result in is propaganda, high cost to the consumer and more advertising than ever before. Privatization is really about taking power away from the majority of inhabitants of society and placing power into the hands of a small number of oligarchs empowered by corporate charters. Our nation is being sold off to special interest oligarchs.
A couple of more rulings like this and our once-great country is gonna end up like East Germany, where half the population was spying on the other half. All hail King George II!!
I think we all have a case!
If a judge violates the law in a decision it is grounds for their immediate removal from the bench.
Someone up top will have thought that it was a bad idea.
Posted by nsSherlock1
-----------------
They own paramount. For them to go into bankruptcy, everybody will have to stop buying star trek DVDs.
Posted by nsSherlock1
-----------------
They own paramount. For them to go into bankruptcy, everybody will have to stop buying star trek DVDs.
Posted by hypnotoad72 at 06:12 PM : Jul 04, 2008
............
Well, after their last four movies, and the next one promising to be an absolute joke, I think Paramount can safely say about the Star Trek franchise:
"It''s dead Jim!"
This is outrageous!!!
As for Viacom, have your MBA bean counters calculated the value of incresed interest in their programs in terms of revenue growth? How about the opportunity costs of bad publicity?
I write music, screenplays, books.
I would certainly be much more motivated to excell, if there were some means of ...preventing replication and dispersal of my hard work, without any money coming to myself or my co-workers.
Anyone having a way to do this in realspace, and not just by threats, will no doubt surpass Bill Gates in realized wealty--and deservedly so--because the world needs motivated artists, artists that share common values in addition to lofty types.
Artists deserve to dream of the large life---and are currently largely deprived of that because no one is doing a Manhattan style discovery and invention process into how to phisically protect works in media, and how to controll dispersal without hijacking free speach.
I write music, screenplays, books.
I would certainly be much more motivated to excell, if there were some means of ...preventing replication and dispersal of my hard work, without any money coming to myself or my co-workers.
Anyone having a way to do this in realspace, and not just by threats, will no doubt surpass Bill Gates in realized wealty--and deservedly so--because the world needs motivated artists, artists that share common values in addition to lofty types.
Artists deserve to dream of the large life---and are currently largely deprived of that because no one is doing a Manhattan style discovery and invention process into how to phisically protect works in media, and how to controll dispersal without hijacking free speach.
If someone buys your book, since when has it become illegal to let someone else read it? If you sell your car, or give it to your shild, since when has your child been obligated to also pay the auto company?
The Chinese and the Russians have developed a way to use "piracy" to their advantage, they quote download, and "illegal CD, and DVD sales estimates and use them to get sponsorship for tours. In a way, this is similar to the old days, before the record companies started swindling both the consumer and the artist, when they were just cheating the artist.
Google "RIAA not paying artists" and you will find that although the RIAA has sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for copyright infringement "on behalf of the copyright holders", not one cent has been paid to the artists, writers, and other creators of the content, the RIAA claiming that the money was used for "legal fees" and "administration costs.
One might riposte that in this case you did not actively seek out the music, and thus shouldn''t be liable, but here again there is a contradiction, Using the same logic, if I went to a junkyard and bought an old wreck and restored it, meaning I did actively seek out say, a 1956 T-Bird, I still am not liable to the auto manufacturer for royalties, but using current copyright attitudes, I should be.
Should Oppenheimer, Einstein, and the other pioneers of nuclear energy receive a royalty for each bomb, or each power generator?
I am also a composer and producer, but knowing that my work will be "pirated" is for me a compliment that someone likes my work enough to risk bad consequenced of obtaining it. I also know from experience that even on legally purchased copies of my work, the distributors usually steal the money, I cannot expect them to be any more honest than a downloader.
I say let them have it, tally up the numbers, and go for sponsorship, I have been very successful using this model.
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/
https://www.jondos.de/en/
For anyone complaining about Viacom trying to protect their material, this is no different than studios trying to protect their DVDs from SE Asian bootleggers, or a publishing company protecting themselves and their authors from others publishing a recent book and giving it away for free.
Companies like Viacom spend MILLIONS of dollars to produce the entertainment that is being given away on YouTube and other web sites. It is their property, and they have as much right to protect it as you have to keep a thief from hauling off your stereo system and TV set.
In fact, if they cannot protect their property, and it becomes impossible to create and make a profit from it, then some or all of the entertainment you''d like to watch on YouTube won''t be produced for you to be able to watch in the first place! That would serve you right.
For the guy with the Musak example, if you are a composer or a producer, I guarantee that it is in your dreams, not your profession, or you would know FAR BETTER than your completely invalid example. When you hear music in an elevator, on the radio, thru a loudspeaker in an amusement part, or ANY OTHER professional setting, the business entity PLAYING (not listening to) the music is paying a small fee to one of the two professional associations for musicians and composers/writers. Those associations then keep track of who is owed what, and pays them. SHAME ON YOU, if you are a professional in the field, for either not knowing the SIMPLEST and most basic information about how professions in your field are paid, or for just outright LIEING for the purpose of making an invalid point.
Nobody is denying Viacom''s right to protect their copyrights. Viacom, along with any other copyright holder, has always had the right to demand any videos using copyrighted content be removed from Youtube, and Youtube has always complied.
What people are questioning is Viacom''s demand to know who is watching copyrighted videos on Youtube. There is no logical reason for wanting this information other than to try and prosecute at worst, or market track at best. Either way, the demand is based on greed.
Idiot Dolt.
A quick google search of the phrase "RIAA not paying artists", will show you the error of your thinking. Your position is based on the principle that artists are paid for their creation, which is simply not in sync with reality. True many people are sued, and millions are collected, but in the case of the RIAA, not a cent of what they have collected, a dollar figure in the hundreds of millions, has ever been paid to the creators of the material in dispute.
For other recording organizations, their contract terms ensure that the artist will never be paid for their creations, and the unfair clauses in contracts are standard throughout the industry, presented on a "take it or leave it" basis. Take a look at a typivcal ASCAP registration form, some of the more onerous terms are, They will pay collected royalties "as and when they see fit", and if you have a dispute, you must submit to arbitration, by an arbitrator of their choosing. Sound fair to you?
Again what you think it is, isn''t, if you knew the insides of the industry as well as we who work in it, the truth would be far clearer to you.
Do you know something that we artists don''t?
"RIAA have been withholding settlement money
Filed under Cyber Crime, Copyrights, Legal and Law,
29th February 2008
Figures released today indicate how much of the millions of dollars in copyright damages they have earned has actually gone to the copyright holders they defend: That figure is $0.00. The total settlement pool is said be around the $400 million mark, and thus far recording studios and artists have yet to see a single cent.
In what could turn out to be a poetic twist of sweet sweet justice, some recording studios are now talking about suing the RIAA for withholding money. Of course the RIAA have their own side of the story.
According to TorrentFreak''s report on the potential action, there may not even be much left to pay out after monstrous legal fees are taken care of. The comments from the labels all claim that the money is on its way, and is simply taking longer due to difficulties dividing it all up."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 54 Comments