Google must divulge YouTube log

BBC ^ | 7/3/08

[weegee]

They want to be able to show how many times their stuff was viewed

There is already a display of the number of times the clip has been viewed. Viacom does not need the records to obtain that information.

[weegee]

Youtube is the ONLY source of a lot of the stuff that people watch!

There are also individuals' clips that have been uploaded to Youtube and then rebroadcast on The Tonight Show and other programs and even tv ads. Somehow I doubt that some of the creators of those clips were paid initially by the rebroadcaster for their work.

[stuartcr]

Even if they have a court order?

[weegee]

This is the jihad on intellectual property rights violation. Not the war on drugs.

Legalize every drug and you’d still find Big Media knocking on your door late at night and raiding flea markets in ATF/FBI style jackets that say RIAA (they do this already by the way).

[mkjessup]

Even if they have a court order?

If they have a court order they won't be showing up at 3:00 AM

[stuartcr]

Around here, that’s usually when they come for those sort of things. I guess they figure there’s a better chance of you being home and half-asleep. Maybe they think you’re aim will be off if they shine bright lights in your face.

[moehoward]

Of course. Viacom is looking for a RIAA type payday. Like the previous poster said, they’re fishing. If they want to know how often a particular clip is viewed, there’s a view counter on each clip.

I seriously doubt any of their properties are viewed more than the private poster nonsense. The YouTube junkies I know are not looking for clips of M*A*S*H or What’s Happening. There’s a whole slew of independent director/editor types these viewers subscribe to.

“One thing is pretty much undisputed — there was a LOT of copyrighted material put on YouTube.”

Certainly is. And a diligent property holder will get YouTubes complete cooperation in removing that material, once brought to their attention.

[moehoward]

It is. I was not using “case” as in ‘law suit’.

[LibWhacker]

I guess I’m mostly worried about the precedent it sets.

What happens when they come for FR’s logs and Pelosi and Reid want to review everything you’ve ever said here, to see if you’ve crossed any lines, or broken any politically correct guidelines and need to be sent to a re-education camp?

[mkjessup]

You think that law enforcement, armed with Google logs and a court order are going to show up at 3:00 AM to see if you have downloaded and/or viewed some of Viacom’s (or anybody’s) “intellectual property” obtained from YouTube?

[stuartcr]

Not being in law enforcement, I don’t know the specifics behind issuing court orders and delivering a summons. I’m just commenting on what I’ve observed locally from our media.

[weegee]

Ah but Youtube clips have a piece of embedded hypertext that makes it easier to repost them on Myspace and elsewhere (like blogs).

And it isn’t just a url, the entire flash video can be viewed on this other page.

Millions of Myspace users embed the images. You may even abstain from the practice but “host” violating videos. All it takes is someone to post a youtube clip to your comments and “you” host it.

I think they are looking for the widest pool of users possible, not just Google’s Youtube.

It must really get Viacom’s goat that they were offered Myspace and turned it down because they didn’t see any way to make money with it. Newscorp ended up buying it. There is advertising all over the site now and the minimum age of users was dropped from 18+ to 13 or 14 I think.

[mkjessup]

Not being in law enforcement, I don’t know the specifics behind issuing court orders and delivering a summons. I’m just commenting on what I’ve observed locally from our media.

LOL! Oh that media, we can always trust them to be fair, objective and balanced.

And here I didn't think you had a sense of humor! ;)

[stuartcr]

I can’t imagine them faking video and photos when they show stuff that happens.

[Recovering_Democrat]

damn, it’d be a shame if all those records were lost.

I bet a thinking jury would convict if they were accidently destroyed. < \sarcasm>

[mkjessup]

I can’t imagine them faking video and photos when they show stuff that happens.

Remember Dan Rather?

The fish rots from the head down, lol

Seriously I know what you're saying, but we have to remember that the middle-of-the-night raids by SWAT teams, all of them going "hut! hut! hut! hut!" as they climb up the walls or drop down from the roof, is a the exception not the rule.

The majority of warrants and court orders are served with very little fanfare, and it doesn't make the news because of the sheer ordinary nature of it.

There may come a day when every American from the top of the socio-economic scale to the very bottom has to live (and sleep) in fear of the late night crashing of the front door, of armed intruders screaming at them and their families to "GET DOWN!" but that day is not yet here.

And as long as there are millions of firearms owned by Americans who understand the Second Amendment's purpose is actually NOT to protect their hunting rights, or their right to self defense, but to act as a check on governmental tyranny, that day will not arrive.

Or if it does, there will be a civil war that will make the last one look like a Sunday afternoon Baptist picnic.

[stuartcr]

I do know that around here, if you answer the door to the police, regardless of the purpose, with a drawn weapon, you will more than likely die.

[moehoward]

Yep. It’ll load up in a browser like any linked remote image file would. But that does not change the true “host”.

“There is advertising all over the site now....”

Aside from a few ads on the splash page, there ain’t much. The individual pages containing the actual clips have none.

“Meanwhile, Viacom also asked for information on Google’s advertising tactics across all its properties – not just YouTube. Viacom wanted to find out how much YouTube might be benefiting financially from ads displayed on copyrighted content, but since Google already agreed to give up a small amount of advertising data as it relates to YouTube, the judge denied the request.”

You’re right. Had the judge allowed it, Viacom would not have stopped at YouTube.

[mkjessup]

I do know that around here, if you answer the door to the police, regardless of the purpose, with a drawn weapon, you will more than likely die.

And what police force might that be?