YouTube Ordered To Reveal Users' Data

Federal Judge Demands Video-Sharing Service Disclose Who Watches Which Video Clips And When

(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?

[wilal]

So whats up with Viacom are they going broke or has the cancer of greed eating away in all stockholders brains. Now I like to know if Viacom themselves has "willfully infringe" copyrights. On the Comedy Central''s "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" I see footage''s of news videos that was shot by a news agency like CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN etc. Now did Viacom pay the news agency to use their copyrights videos to air on The Daily Show. My guest they didn''t and used them how they feel. What I have seen on YouTube with SpongeBob SquarePants was people using parts to express themselves with their music and comments. The other Viacom shows was cut up to make fun or to have fun with. I did not see a full shows on YouTube for Viacom to call foul on. I don''t see where Viacom is losing any money on these YouTube videos to ask for 1 billion dollars. You can thank your DEMOCRAT Bill (Slick Willy) Clinton for passing in to law the copyright piracy act. What they did is cause a witch hunt and made the courts witch are over flowing today with cases more backed up.

[vranger]

Part II ... see below first

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.

[vranger]

Sorry to have to point this out, but as is ALWAYS the case, the posts on a CBS comment list are chock full of ignorance and just plain stupidity.

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.

[kerpalguy]

Protect yourself while surfing:

https://www.jondos.de/en/

[dovestar]

Control and money. That''s what this is about, folks. We may have freedom of speech, but if someone else said it first, one may be liable for copyright infringement. While artists, producers, inventors, etc. should be paid for their work like the rest of us, the system has gotten totally out of hand and needs to be reined in by we the people--not paid lobbyists who usually write these rules for special interests.

[brianbwb-2009]

I usually don''t post links, but the following one is important reading for those who take the industry line on copyrights, and not only that, but it will also show you a side of Courtney Love you''ve rarely seen, and for a good reason, she is a lot smarter than the media would have you believe.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/

[brianbwb-2009]

When listening to Barry Manilow on an elevator, does it occur to you that you are listening to Mr. Manilow''s work royalty-free, and therefore might be liable for royalties? Using current logic, which has supplanted millenia of common law commerce, this is exactly where corporations are trying to head.

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.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by goldesprit

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.

[apprxam]

ViaCom is full of shi-ite! Fighting al carte service tooth & nail, they should be glad somebody is watching Comedy Central intentionally. Why in the hell would they want to identify YouTube viewers? Source-codes is only part of it! Thye, like most American businesses, large and small want to commoditize the ISP addresses and push in on Googles advert dollar. Like with MicroSoft, "dog pile on the rabbit" and like television, no originality. If there was the chance that they were doing it for the good of the net-surfing public, that would be cool; but they aren''t.

[goldesprit]

Many have watched you tube. By the numbers, we can''''t jail them all.

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.