Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom

[Mise]

Well, when I was looking for a new mobile phone, I got adverts for various phones, contract deals, and even a few for wireless VoiP solutions. When I was looking for savings accounts, I got adverts from various banks with their savings accounts. Today, I've been looking for two things: Mortgages, and used cars (not to buy, just for giggles). At the top of my screen is an advert from a mortgage provider, and at the bottom of my screen is an advert for a car loan!

Now, there's no way I'd buy either of those based on an advert, but the mobile phone and savings account adverts were really, really useful. It's magic!

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I have to say, I don't mind google doing its stuff with my data. I've noticed that adverts I get on this site and others really is relevant to me, and is genuinely useful. It's a nice change from regular untargeted advertising.

Have you ever googled something that would not make your mother proud? Would you want everyone to know what you have googled? What if some nutcase takes power and decides to kill everyone that thinks differently?

 

[Mise]

Have you ever googled something that would not make your mother proud? Would you want everyone to know what you have googled? What if some nutcase takes power and decides to kill everyone that thinks differently?

3 questions, 3 answers:

1) No, actually...
2) No, but (a) google doesn't store any data that can be traced back to me personally, and (b) if it did happen it wouldn't be a tragedy.
3) That's just ridiculous... If that happened, googling stuff would be the least of my worries.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

3 questions, 3 answers:

1) No, actually...
2) No, but (a) google doesn't store any data that can be traced back to me personally, and (b) if it did happen it wouldn't be a tragedy.
3) That's just ridiculous... If that happened, googling stuff would be the least of my worries.

Ok it might not be a problem for you, but there ae other people in this world.

 

[azzaman333]

Ok it might not be a problem for you, but there ae other people in this world.

I agree with Mise.

 

[Ecofarm]

Have you ever googled something that would not make your mother proud? Would you want everyone to know what you have googled? What if some nutcase takes power and decides to kill everyone that thinks differently?

I'm not sure she is fond of porn, even the mundane sort (but I don't use google or youtube for that!).

I use google as a spell check, so you might find some interesting words there. Don't care. Sometimes, I have to google a word dozens of times before I FINALLY start spelling it correctly (it's one of the glitches in my IQ, I suppose). I imagine this defense would excuse any google searches from prosecution, so what are people worried about?

What? Seriously? It think it would be much more important to have a gun (or experience that would cause people to give you them) than secret goggle searches! What, you would crawl into a hole and hide instead of forming a militant resistance movement? Don't worry, the US is not going to let anyone take over Sweden and Sweden (IIRC) does not have laws against nazi-chat (only Germany does, right?)... you can unbunch.

 

[GenMarshall]

Utter sillyness...

 

[DNK]

I guess I'm alone in not wanting large corporations collecting large piles of personal information on me and creating a detailed personal profile. I guess it's for the best. The fewer people that prefer anonymity, the less those corporations are going to care, and the less they're going to try to circumvent the available methods of anonymity. So, I suppose it's in my favor to convince you all Mise is right.

Nothing to see here, guys. Who cares about privacy? I don't. You're lame or paranoid if you do

 

[Ecofarm]

Who cares about privacy? I don't. You're lame or paranoid if you do

Don't be hating on exhibitionists.

 

[DNK]

I'm not. Everyone should be an exhibitionist. Exhibit everything you say, research, and do to anyone and everyone. It's fun! I do it. Hey, right now I'm walking around town naked, handing copies of my personal diary and bank statements out to everyone. It's a real thrill!

 

[MobBoss]

Why would they need IP addresses and user data to prove that?

To go after specific trademark violators probably.

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm not. Everyone should be an exhibitionist. Exhibit everything you say, research, and do to anyone and everyone. It's fun! I do it. Hey, right now I'm walking around town naked, handing copies of my personal diary and bank statements out to everyone. It's a real thrill!

If you were a hot rich chick (or even poor, if you're really hot), it would be a thrill for me too. Anyway, some people are probably happy about it. Good work!

 

[Zelig]

I use google as a spell check, so you might find some interesting words there. Don't care. Sometimes, I have to google a word dozens of times before I FINALLY start spelling it correctly (it's one of the glitches in my IQ, I suppose). I imagine this defense would excuse any google searches from prosecution, so what are people worried about?

Hahah, I knew I couldn't be the only person who does this.

My browser is always open, so it's super handy.

 

[Mise]

To go after specific trademark violators probably.

That wasn't the reason Viacom used to get the information, so if they did use the information in that way, it would be illegal. In fact, the judge even said that the data was aggregated and there was no way of determining specific users from the data! I don't see why they can't just look at the hits on each video to determine whether legal or illegal videos are more popular, or at least encrypt the IPs and username data (i.e. turn them into another unique set of numbers, that is untracable back to the original IP, and the original user).

 

[feline_dacat]

That wasn't the reason Viacom used to get the information, so if they did use the information in that way, it would be illegal. In fact, the judge even said that the data was aggregated and there was no way of determining specific users from the data! I don't see why they can't just look at the hits on each video to determine whether legal or illegal videos are more popular, or at least encrypt the IPs and username data (i.e. turn them into another unique set of numbers, that is untracable back to the original IP, and the original user).

Encrypting the data is a good alternative. I still don't quite understand why they need the IP addresses and username data though.

 

[scy12]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html



Geez, privacy and the courts just don't get along lately.

Damn those fascist scum.

 

[Holycannoli]

Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.

All I know is they're probably right about infringing material being more popular than user-created videos. I never watch user-created videos, and use youtube purely to watch copyrighted things (not with the intent of infringing on copyright though).

Most of those user-created videos are boring.

 

[feline_dacat]

Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.

Surely then they only need to look at viewing numbers and ratings of the videos in question to determine if one is more popular than another?

 

[azzaman333]

I guess I'm alone in not wanting large corporations collecting large piles of personal information on me and creating a detailed personal profile. I guess it's for the best. The fewer people that prefer anonymity, the less those corporations are going to care, and the less they're going to try to circumvent the available methods of anonymity. So, I suppose it's in my favor to convince you all Mise is right.

Nothing to see here, guys. Who cares about privacy? I don't. You're lame or paranoid if you do

I'd prefer if my searches on google remained private, but I haven't searched anything that I'd need to hide.

 

[Mise]

Common sense reigns!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7506948.stm

Viacom 'backs off' YouTube demand

Google bought YouTube in 2006
Viacom has "backed off" from demands to divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched a video on YouTube, the website has claimed.

Google had been ordered to provide personal details of millions of YouTube users to help Viacom prepare its case on alleged copyright infringement.

Google, owners of YouTube, will now hand over the database but without data that could identify users.

Viacom has a $1bn (£497m) copyright infringement lawsuit against Google.

A class action by other organisations including the English Premier League has also agreed to the new terms.

"We are pleased to report that Viacom, MTV and other litigants have backed off their original demand for all users' viewing histories and we will not be providing that information," said a statement on the YouTube blog.

The decision will be welcomed by privacy activists, many of whom expressed concern over a US judge's order for Google to provide the data in early July.

Continuing battle

YouTube, which was bought by Google in 2006, is in battle with Viacom, which owns MTV and Paramount Pictures, over alleged copyright infringement.

Viacom alleges clips from its programmes have been viewed on YouTube without its consent.

When it initiated legal action in March 2007, it 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 content that infringes copyright from appearing on the site.

Viacom had said it wanted the log data to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos".

But privacy activists argued in response that the original order "threatens to expose deeply private information" and was in breach of a 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act, which was passed after the rental habits of a Supreme Court nominee were publicised.

The new ruling means that Google will still have to hand over the data logs but in an "anonymized form", meaning it will not divulge usernames and IP data.

An earlier Viacom request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube has already been denied by a US court on the grounds it is a "trade secret".

Despite Tuesday's agreement, the companies are yet to agree the process of information disclosure regarding viewing of YouTube clips by employees of YouTube and Google. This is expected to be settled in the coming weeks.

The cases are expected to come to trial in 2009 or 2010.

In otherwords, it will do exactly what I and others in this thread have suggested. Good job CFC!