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. 

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.

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.

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!