YouTube Ordered To Reveal Users' Data

(AP)  Dismissing privacy concerns, a federal judge overseeing a $1 billion copyright-infringement lawsuit against YouTube has ordered the popular online video-sharing service to disclose who watches which video clips and when.

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.

[brianbwb-2009]

"The software is automatically installed when a Sony CD is played on a computer, and is not mentioned in their EULA. The rootkit has been commercially developed by First 4 Internet and licensed to Sony." Posted by brianbwb

The irony is that the rootkit itself is a totally plagiarized version of a linux rootkit, sold by the company as their own software.

Is this helping make it all clearer to you?

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by vranger

This happened in 2005,

"Mark Russinovich, of SysInternals.com, has discovered a so-called "rootkit" which is installed by Sony''s new digital rights management-protected music compact disks (CDs). A rootkit is a common name for malicious software that is used by computer criminals to hide their presence on a compromised computer. Rootkits frequently contain hidden files and are designed to be difficult for the user to detect and remove..."

The rootkit calls home to Sony if you are online, telling them about what content is on your computer, and steals your CPU bandwidth, thus slowing down your computer, for its purposes.

"Russinovich explains that naively removing the files will result in a crippling of the operating system on the user''s computer. He provides an explanation of the difficult step required to remove Sony''s malware.

Playing the same CDs on computers not running the Windows operating system, or on a non-computer based CD player remains safe. As removing Sony''s malware would violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act''s anti-circumvention provisions, ripping the CDs on computers running a non-Windows operating system may be the best legal and technically safe option for those who wish to listen to them under Windows.

The software is automatically installed when a Sony CD is played on a computer, and is not mentioned in their EULA. The rootkit has been commercially developed by First 4 Internet and licensed to Sony.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by vranger

By the way, did you know that if you register your own songa with ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or any of their worldwide affiliates, you are obligated to pay them a fee to perform your own songs, after which they subtract their "administration fees" then pay you your share of your own money "as and when they see fit"?

In many cases, the applicable fees can be more than the artist is making for the performance.

It is just a shakedown racket, victimizing the artists and the listeners, nothing more, and needs to be repealed.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by vranger

By the way, did you know that if you register your own songa with ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, or any of their worldwide affiliates, you are obligated to pay them a fee to perform your own songs, after which they subtract their "administration fees" then pay you your share of your own money "as and when they see fit"?

In many cases, the applicable fees can be more than the artist is making for the performance.

It is just a shakedown racket, victimizing the artists and the listeners, nothing more, and needs to be repealed.

[brianbwb-2009]

"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." Posted by vranger

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."

[brianbwb-2009]

"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." Posted by vranger

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.

[Netterz]

This opens the doors for further Gov''t use down the line, until they have completed lisings of who watches/loads what and when.... Another step towards proving that they are working towards Communism..........

[godseyesore-2009]

Obviously a judge who cares more for corporations than the constitutional rights of Americans. Nice July 4th decision, judge.
Idiot Dolt.

[gmond]

vranger - rather than call everyone else ignorant, read the article.

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.

[lpgideon]

How about this thought? I worked for Hughes aircraft back in the 1950s testing the fire control systems for the AF jets of the day. I was paid for that. Now, those systems were used over and over again. Just like these so called actors etc., who have done some acting, how come they can get paid for any reruns, while I get nothing for the many times the systems I built are used over and over again. What is the difference?