Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: xanque on July 07, 2008, 01:59:24 pm
-
Source: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/biztech/07/03/youtubelawsuit.ap/index.html
NEW YORK (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 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.
They say it's to investigate copyright infringements, but what the hell do they need to know the viewers for? I do a lot of searches for anti-christian videos, as well as anti-Bush videos, so is that going to put me in danger of being questioned or arrested?
I don't want to believe that the united states is slowly making its way to a dictatorship, or that it's already there, but when a judge orders something like this, you really have to wonder. Do the american people have any say in anything anymore?
-
So does this apply to everyone who watches videos on YouTube internationally, or just the US?
Regardless, this is a pretty awful move. Under the right circumstances, what you watch on YouTube could be used against you if access to this information becomes more widespread.
-
I do a lot of searches for anti-christian videos, as well as anti-Bush videos
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
-
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
I'm not taking an active stand on either subject, I just find them interesting. Regardless of why I watch them, I don't think the government needs to be able to track them.
-
How the hell does this become an anti-american subject? It's a site on the internet. That's a world issue, not a single country issue. Get a life.
-
I'm big into privacy so of course I'm against this. In my own narrow sphere I only use youtube for watching comedies from a few years ago, so I have nothing to be afraid of. But yeah monitoring what people do is definately NOT GOOD, as in a discusting breach of privacy.
-
being that youtube is a us company and all the suits filed against it would be from america citizens most likely and the ruling came from a New York judge, it's a single country issue.
-
Who cares? The new FRA law in sweden allows the government to check everyones internet activites, even e-mails.
Now that's stupid :(
-
I bet that it's only a manner of time before they try to use search histories to speculatively sue people searching for copyrighted material on YouTube.
-
Yeah, they're trying to put laws like this in Israel too. They even named one of them, I kid you not, Big Brother law.
One law allows the police to access your phone record and information without getting permission from the court. The other wants to censor the internet(!).
I really don't want to wake up one day and discover that Orwell was a prophet.
-
God thats retarded. Why the hell would they need the information anyway? They need the data to see if their copyrighted materials are more viewed than amateur videos. Bullshit.
-
good things about argetina is that they don't do anything about the internet, it is so great!
-
They might as well request the records of what people checkout at the library.
-
They might as well request the records of what people checkout at the library.
I get where you were trying to go with this, but seriously, there's a pretty large difference. Just think about the content on youtube and the content in your average library, there's a lot more you can see on youtube that you don't want revealed about you than in a library.
-
This is just stupid. How exactly is this supposed to help anything?
If they're worried about copyright material being released...shouldn't the people who upload them be at fault instead of the people watching them?
-
I get where you were trying to go with this, but seriously, there's a pretty large difference. Just think about the content on youtube and the content in your average library, there's a lot more you can see on youtube that you don't want revealed about you than in a library.
user: Velfarre searched for 'licking dog genitals'
-
Why don't they disclose records of Youtube employees and their surfing/search history to see if they were aware they had Spongebob Squarepants/ Daily Show on their website and did nothing about it, or half-assed it
I dunno if they have people searching through, or bots or what because some videos do get removed for copyright infringement
also they forgot about Naruto/Family Guy. That shit's like ALWAYS on the front page on Youtube, I've seen like Steven Colbert's or Jon Stewart's face twice maybe (sorry guys nobody cares about you that much)
Also the library has a good amount of crap actually, it's no Blockbuster but there are a lot of muvees come to think of it - I also stole every Beatles album from the college library screw you Michael Jackson (not in the good way you perv)
-
user: Velfarre searched for 'licking dog genitals'
ghohohoho
But that is kind of what I mean though, that's something you might find on youtube that would be embarassing if people knew, but you sure as hell won't find that in the library.
Fun fact: apparently one time I searched for "let me touch you head" on youtube, exactly like that, and i don't remember doing it. at all. it was definitely me because no one else had my computer and the "you" instead of "your" is not something anyone else i know would do, but i don't know why i searched for that (i don't think i found anything either). kinda weird!
also "2 hot girls in the shower" is in my search, and is perfectly innocent (search for it, you'll see), but if it was PRINTED UP IN A REPORT SOMEWHERE or something it definitely won't look like it's okay!
-
I'm not taking an active stand on either subject, I just find them interesting. Regardless of why I watch them, I don't think the government needs to be able to track them.
this has nothing to do with the government[/size]
note how the information is only being released to VIACOM, INC which is the plaintiff, the government isn't and won't be getting the data.
edit: wtf did ANYONE in this topic actually read the article
-
The devils in the details.
Still however, I don't like either having the information, you'd be better off just demanding who uploads their crap instead.
-
ghohohoho
But that is kind of what I mean though, that's something you might find on youtube that would be embarassing if people knew, but you sure as hell won't find that in the library.
Ya I mean that's true, I was just saying it's logically the same thing and for some reason I thought the library example would appear more outrageous.
-
how many "rick roll'd"'s are gonna come up i wonder
-
Historically, empires fall in decadency... Why should the US be different?
-
this has nothing to do with the government[/size]
note how the information is only being released to VIACOM, INC which is the plaintiff, the government isn't and won't be getting the data.
edit: wtf did ANYONE in this topic actually read the article
Dude it's still a MAJOR breach of privacy regardless of who reads it. instead of people worrying about having uncle sam breathing down their necks with "HO YOURE A TERRORIST GEORGE BUSH IS NOT FROM THE ZOO!" it's instead gunna be creepy sid from legal department breathing down their necks with "You watched this high quality program, "friends" without paying these fine actors. Gimmie your money, your mortgage and your house"
EXAGGERATION DEPARTMENT at work here, but you get the picture. Regardless of who gets the info, the fact that they are getting it is very bad.
Also very few people mentioned G.g..g...government.
-
this has nothing to do with the government[/size]
note how the information is only being released to VIACOM, INC which is the plaintiff, the government isn't and won't be getting the data.
edit: wtf did ANYONE in this topic actually read the article
According to oblivion (the IRC guy), big corporations will eventually replace the US government and have their private armies. It's a shame we never got around to making that game...
On a more serious note, this is pretty lame. I don't really care if they monitor my youtube activities as they wouldn't focus on one of the millions of users, but I'm concerned about the general trend of decreasing internet anonymity and privacy.
-
I mostly watch gameplay vids and some amusing vids like a Plane about to take off and blowing the people nearby into the sea, (hilarious.) So, if they're gonna question me what I learned in what game and how to beat something that certain way, then wow... what is this world coming to... O_o; Like what are they gonna arrest me for, watching some Final Fantasy ending, and they accuse me for cheating and not beating the game... Christ...
-
Viacom isn't going to sue you and take your house away for watching dumb animes on youtube. They're trying to build a case in order to sue the owners of youtube for not doing enough about copyright infringement. If you're embarrassed that some company might know you actively search for yiff fetish videos on the internet then be a little more discreet about your perversions.
yeah i was going to say something like this (Actually i was thinking something like this and wasn't really going to reply at all). you're not oing to wake up oneday to find VIACOM AGENTS kicking down your door HEY STICKE EM UP WE CAUGHT YOU WATCHING SPNGEBOB ON YOUTUBE. that isn't going to do anything and the companies pretty much know it. they want to go to the SOURCE (or whate they believe is the source). the data they're collecting is to GET YOUTUBE not to GET YOU.
stuff like this doesn't really bother me for reasons like that and on some levels i totally get what these companies are doing. but realistically they're just wasting their time. instead they should learn to accept and embrace this kind of stuff and turn it to make a profit. they';re very stuck in their old ways and going after youtube and google and shit isn't really going to do much for them in the long run.
-
...
Limiting the internet is and always will be stupid.
At this rate, they're only gonna make the internet collapse upon itself... Limiting content to certain countries only, breaching the privacy of users, etc...
-
no one can bring down google
this will go nowhere.....
also this is dumb but I don't really care, I'll start caring when canada starts caring
-
Viacom isn't going to sue you and take your house away for watching dumb animes on youtube. They're trying to build a case in order to sue the owners of youtube for not doing enough about copyright infringement. If you're embarrassed that some company might know you actively search for yiff fetish videos on the internet then be a little more discreet about your perversions.
yeah i was going to say something like this (Actually i was thinking something like this and wasn't really going to reply at all). you're not oing to wake up oneday to find VIACOM AGENTS kicking down your door HEY STICKE EM UP WE CAUGHT YOU WATCHING SPNGEBOB ON YOUTUBE. that isn't going to do anything and the companies pretty much know it. they want to go to the SOURCE (or whate they believe is the source). the data they're collecting is to GET YOUTUBE not to GET YOU.
stuff like this doesn't really bother me for reasons like that and on some levels i totally get what these companies are doing. but realistically they're just wasting their time. instead they should learn to accept and embrace this kind of stuff and turn it to make a profit. they';re very stuck in their old ways and going after youtube and google and shit isn't really going to do much for them in the long run.
Pretty much this. The entire scenario is and will be irrelevant to 99% of society at large. People sure love their bitching and fearmongering.
Thank God for radio_raheem and missingno being the only voices of reason in this topic.
-
Lawyers for 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.
Oh wow, enjoy sifting through that data.
-
no one can bring down google
Thats because its Google Baby! (unless they had a +9 Google slaying sword :sweat: )
Seriously though, I'm not phased, let em look, I hardly watch anything on youtube anyway.
-
A company trying to attack the internet because people are looking at stuff for free. What's new about that.
STOP NOT GIVING ME MONEY ARGH OH I KNOW LETS SUE GOOGLE FOR A ZILLION MEGADOLLARS
Unless it results in all of my videos being deleted because they got copyrighted music in the background, I don't really care.
And for the breach of privacy part, yeah that's pretty bad because it sets yet another precedent of that shit. But bah google will prolly be able to like force them to only take the raw numbers of views to videos and not the individual people watching them, since its the only part they care about anyways.
-
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.
OMFGOBJECTION!!!1. I smell a contradiction. Either the media is blowing this case out of proportion, or Viacom is actually asking for that information. I'd understand raw numbers, because that would prove 'whether their copyright-protected videos are more heavily watched than amateur clips" but anything more than that is intrusive.
Why would Viacom want user information and timestamps (proof of viewing) if they weren't going to try to flag down the users in any way?
Also:
Unless it results in all of my videos being deleted because they got copyrighted music in the background, I don't really care.
That would be fucking messed up.
-
I don't like any invasion of privacy at all, whether it be my friends looking into my window to see what I am doing, or this whole youtube thing. I just want my privacy to be respected.
Unless it results in all of my videos being deleted because they got copyrighted music in the background, I don't really care.
I'd hate for my videos to be deleted because of copyrighted music.
-
Well I know some countries are way more strict as far as copyright goes. Like in France, I heard that barber shops have to pay if they want to make music play for their customers while they do their work. I find this a little hard to believe though...! (any french people here to confirm this...?)
-
I've been to France, I tell you it's true. They also charge customers just to sit down at cafe shops too, seriously.
However the question now is will Viacom Inc. win.
-
At this rate, they're only gonna make the internet collapse upon itself... Limiting content to certain countries only, breaching the privacy of users, etc...
Don't worry too much. The internet wasn't built for censorship.
It's like trying to take down a fighter jet with an air gun.
-
The internet wasn't built for censorship, but that means it should be built for piracy?
This is other people's intellectual properties and Viacom's as the vanguard for those rights is trying to make a case that the industry is being financially damaged because of youtube's lax policing of copy infringement. This is a civil court case and Viacom needs to justify its financial damages of up to one billion dollars due to youtube. To do that they need to prove that these video's in of themselves steal a significant audience from standard viewing via regular hours or with a tivo. That's why they would need the numbers, and I can understand why they aren't going to just take youtube's word for it and verify those numbers themselves.
They could in theory go after every illicit content uploader and they would be welcome to subpoena youtube for the appropriate information needed to identify the user in question. Obviously the problem is so sweeping that Viacom has decided to sue youtube directly for not adequately respecting copyright laws on its site by purging illicit materials in a timely manner. Also this is an enormous amount of data and the likelihood of viacom to take time out of the compilation of their court case to catalogue individual viewing usage i.e. "gee 65.076.234 sure likes Bushhitler videos" would be a total waste of their time. A billion dollars is at stake. No time to be petty or play master spy. This is an ongoing trial and they have a deadline to crunch their numbers for evidence.
Google is making a mockery of common sense bringing up that this is a privacy issue, as if viacom cares that I have a thing for Jessica Alba when a billion dollars is at stake. Frankly I can't even bring up crocodile tears for them since they threw principles into the wind to help China stifle the internet access of all its trouble makers who have this crazy idea that Mao Tse Tung slaughtered millions of people.
-
Hmm, so this is what all the Viacom boycotts are about, huh?
YouTube regulars (mostly directors) are pretty mad about this.
-
The internet wasn't built for censorship, but that means it should be built for piracy?
This is other people's intellectual properties and Viacom's as the vanguard for those rights is trying to make a case that the industry is being financially damaged because of youtube's lax policing of copy infringement. This is a civil court case and Viacom needs to justify its financial damages of up to one billion dollars due to youtube. To do that they need to prove that these video's in of themselves steal a significant audience from standard viewing via regular hours or with a tivo. That's why they would need the numbers, and I can understand why they aren't going to just take youtube's word for it and verify those numbers themselves.
They could in theory go after every illicit content uploader and they would be welcome to subpoena youtube for the appropriate information needed to identify the user in question. Obviously the problem is so sweeping that Viacom has decided to sue youtube directly for not adequately respecting copyright laws on its site by purging illicit materials in a timely manner. Also this is an enormous amount of data and the likelihood of viacom to take time out of the compilation of their court case to catalogue individual viewing usage i.e. "gee 65.076.234 sure likes Bushhitler videos" would be a total waste of their time. A billion dollars is at stake. No time to be petty or play master spy. This is an ongoing trial and they have a deadline to crunch their numbers for evidence.
Google is making a mockery of common sense bringing up that this is a privacy issue, as if viacom cares that I have a thing for Jessica Alba when a billion dollars is at stake. Frankly I can't even bring up crocodile tears for them since they threw principles into the wind to help China stifle the internet access of all its trouble makers who have this crazy idea that Mao Tse Tung slaughtered millions of people.
You are an imbecile through and through...
"Financial damages" have always been debatable, because in most cases, it's no different than taping shit shown on the television, or even if it's actually illegal, it usually helps promote a product and in the end more people buy it.
Also, all this "copyright infringement" has been going on forever and WILL NEVER stop, it has been going on since the tape era but they just bitched less back then... Or can you honestly say you never taped something from the radio or TV? Or that you never copied one of your friends' tapes?
-
You are an imbecile through and through...
"Financial damages" have always been debatable
That's the point I'm making chief. They are suing for a billion in damages. Viacom wants, scratch that, needs that information to justify their damages and make their case. Glad we agree. Do you feel better now that you've got that off your chest? I may be new but was the flame necessary?
it's no different than taping shit shown on the television, or even if it's actually illegal, it usually helps promote a product and in the end more people buy it.
Well chief its not about buying the product. Its about the ad revenue. The networks don't make shows to sell 'em they make to get you to tune in so they can sell the ad space. Some dude ripping them sans the commercials and throwing them on youtube where google makes ad revenue for providing the interactive medium seems to rub them the wrong way understandably so.
Also Viacom understands that people are taping shit off of television. But the effect is no where near similar. The audience for such viewings is severely limited when said tape is kept off the internet. Even you would agree there.
-
That's the point I'm making chief. They are suing for a billion in damages. Viacom wants, scratch that, needs that information to justify their damages and make their case. Glad we agree. Do you feel better now that you've got that off your chest? I may be new but was the flame necessary?
Well chief its not about buying the product. Its about the ad revenue. The networks don't make shows to sell 'em they make to get you to tune in so they can sell the ad space. Some dude ripping them sans the commercials and throwing them on youtube where google makes ad revenue for providing the interactive medium seems to rub them the wrong way understandably so.
Also Viacom understands that people are taping shit off of television. But the effect is no where near similar. The audience for such viewings is severely limited when said tape is kept off the internet. Even you would agree there.
Yes it was necessary because we're arguing totally opposed views. I think Viacom are fucking douchebags, as are all big media companies and have only to have absolutely NO SCRUPLES whatsoever to claim they are actually losing money.
-
Big media companies like, Google??? This is hardly the big guy vs. the little guy. If it were Viacom would be suing the uploaders which they are not. They are suing google/youtube for collecting ad revenue on their content and doing little about it. But if its all about ethics with you I can tell you only one of these companies helped China screen the internet of offensive materials for its people to "safely" consume, and it wasn't the evil Viacom corporation. How is that scrupulous?
-
Big media companies like, Google??? This is hardly the big guy vs. the little guy. If it were Viacom would be suing the uploaders which they are not. They are suing google/youtube for collecting ad revenue on their content and doing little about it. But if its all about ethics with you I can tell you only one of these companies helped China screen the internet of offensive materials for its people to "safely" consume, and it wasn't the evil Viacom corporation. How is that scrupulous?
While not big guy vs little guy, I think most people have a tendency to view it as vaguely 'good guy vs bad guy'.
Google's argument for access in China was that it was the lesser of two evils; I.E., better some access in China than no access in China. They made no secret about how they felt about China's censorship laws and petitioned to change them. While it's not an ideal situation, giving some help to the average Chinese citizen is better than not allowing any Google access at all.
However, in order for this case to work, Viacom should have to demonstrate actual financial harm caused specifically by YouTube's policies. YouTube has an active moderation system which consistently prunes videos that are tagged as copyright infringement. I find it hard to believe that this is anything but a misdirected measure to fight 'piracy' when honestly it's incredibly hard to find consistently good licensed content on YouTube either way because it's removed so quickly and the length of clips is limited. But then again, every time they go against an actual distributor like TVlinks, copycats in protected countries just pop up.
It's a losing battle and they should find a way to market free programming and still make money, like what NBC does with all of its programs (free HD streams with some ads) or South Park Studios.
-
Oh god... It's useless talking to you... I'm not advocating for google? Just saying media companies suck balls!
Anyway... Since you're so obviously unable to read I'll stop discussing right here.
-
While not big guy vs little guy, I think most people have a tendency to view it as vaguely 'good guy vs bad guy'.
Google's argument for access in China was that it was the lesser of two evils; I.E., better some access in China than no access in China. They made no secret about how they felt about China's censorship laws and petitioned to change them. While it's not an ideal situation, giving some help to the average Chinese citizen is better than not allowing any Google access at all.
However, in order for this case to work, Viacom should have to demonstrate actual financial harm caused specifically by YouTube's policies. YouTube has an active moderation system which consistently prunes videos that are tagged as copyright infringement. I find it hard to believe that this is anything but a misdirected measure to fight 'piracy' when honestly it's incredibly hard to find consistently good licensed content on YouTube either way because it's removed so quickly and the length of clips is limited. But then again, every time they go against an actual distributor like TVlinks, copycats in protected countries just pop up.
It's a losing battle and they should find a way to market free programming and still make money, like what NBC does with all of its programs (free HD streams with some ads) or South Park Studios.
To be honest I think if many of the TV staples such as Network news weren't taking such a big hit from internet generated content (i.e. AP/Reuters/AFP feeds and such), you wouldn't be seeing such a backlash over it. The internet took a big chunk that the other mediums once had monopolized to a certain extent. All that said, there is nothing right about Google collecting ad revenue on other people's copyrighted material. Whether its a billion in damages remains to be seen, and I have my doubts they will gain that amount by the end. At some point they will arrive at a number they both agree to and settle out, I'm sure.
As far as content is concerned I can tell you there's plenty of Seinfeld. Not full episodes, maybe if scroll far enough back you'll find one, but plenty of hefty six to ten minute clips. Which is a good chunk out of a twenty two minute program. Whether that is choking Viacom out of one billion I doubt, but they certainly have a claim in my opinion.
http://youtube.com/results?search_query=seinfeld&page=1
Considering the cadre of clips of 6 - 10 minutes that have sat around for a year or two I don't know if you can really call the moderating stringent. Its not like Seinfeld is an obscure show.
Nice jousting with you TREG.
-
It is pretty hard to imagine how a better system to block copyrighted videos would work. Manual approval by youtube staff of every video with suspicious keywords would obviously be unrealistic, with the huge traffic they got and stuff. Refusing any video that contains copyrighted terms wouldn't work either, it would do much more harm than good.
Maybe uh. Encouraging users to flag pirate videos somehow? like give them POINTS for that. haha. that would create CHAOS. Maybe giving some users a special status that makes them like YOUTUBE COPS and makes them hunt down videos in exchange of youtube cred....
But!! Even if it was truly impossible for YouTube to stop piracy on its own site, why should Viacom care? Youtube still makes ad money on their material, n that ain't fair.
But even after getting sued and paying up, what can Google do? The infringements will continue, there really is nothing they can do about them. Would viacom just SUE THEM AGAIN like periodically? Heey our monthly Google check, nice! I don't know, I really cant imagine how this will work in the long run. Also if this works, more companies will follow suit. C...c...could this be youtube's downfall.....?