Posted on 07/03/2008 8:27:18 AM PDT by LibWhacker
Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled.
The ruling comes as part of Google's legal battle with Viacom over allegations of copyright infringement.
Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the ruling a "set-back to privacy rights".
The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.
While the legal battle between the two firms is being contested in the US, it is thought the ruling will apply to YouTube users and their viewing habits everywhere.
Viacom, which owns MTV and Paramount Pictures, has alleged that YouTube is guilty of massive copyright infringement.
Legal action
When it initiated legal action in March 2007 the firm said it had identified about 160,000 unauthorised clips of its programmes on the website, which had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.
Following the launch of its billion-dollar lawsuit, YouTube introduced filtering tools in an effort to prevent copyright materials from appearing on the site.
The US court declined Viacom's request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube, saying it was a "trade secret" that should not be disclosed.
But it said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative".
The ruling will see the viewing habits of millions of YouTube users given to Viacom, totalling more than 12 terabytes of data.
Viacom said it wanted the data to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."
'Erroneous ruling'
The EFF said: "The Court's erroneous ruling is a set-back to privacy rights, and will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube.
"We urge Viacom to back off this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users."
The body said the ruling was also potentially unlawful because the log data did contain personally identifiable data.
The court also ruled that Google disclose to Viacom the details of all videos that have been removed from the site for any reason.
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.
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.
Even if they have a court order?
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).
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.
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.
It is. I was not using “case” as in ‘law suit’.
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?
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?
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.
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.
I can’t imagine them faking video and photos when they show stuff that happens.
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>
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.