Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (2829.1)
    Don't know how likely this is to stand up, but wow:

    That data includes every YouTube username, the associated IP address and the videos that user has watched on YouTube. Google will also be required to hand over copies of every video removed from Youtube for any reason (DMCA notices or user-initiated deletions). Stanton dismissed Google’s argument that the order will violate user privacy, saying such privacy concerns are merely “speculative.”
    • CommentAuthorVaruker
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
     (2829.2)
    I really enjoyed the fact that the judge ruling on this case graduated law school in 1955. It'll be interesting to see how far this goes. Doesn't this violate the privacy policy that every user agrees to before creating an account? Seems to me that neither the user names nor IP addresses are needed to "understand the popularity of copyright infringing v. non-infringing material."
    •  
      CommentAuthorKPeff
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
     (2829.3)
    Billionaire Mark Cuban is a known YouTube detractor, and he thinks that the most important thing to this case is porn:
    Who identifies the porn on Youtube ? According to Youtube, its regular users who police the site. Personally, I dont believe it. Whether its individuals or technology that keep porn off of Youtube, it really doesn't matter. If Viacom can use this data to show that Youtube manages the presentation of porn in any way, then they lose their DMCA protection.
    But I can't imagine that YouTube would be dumb enough to risk losing its DMCA exemption.
    •  
      CommentAuthortedcroland
    • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2008
     (2829.4)
    This is a disgusting violation of personal privacy.
  2.  (2829.5)
    I've just spent five minutes searching for 'Why are Viacom such cunts?'

    Hope they get to read it.
  3.  (2829.6)
    It's been suggested that there's nothing preventing Google from fulfilling the order by delivering the 20+ terabytes of data on paper.
  4.  (2829.7)
    Well, it's not very envromentally friendly.

    How about having the IP address in one database, and the search terms in another, unconnected, database?
    •  
      CommentAuthorobliterati
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2008
     (2829.8)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    Hulk smash little Judge!
    • CommentAuthorpoor_boy
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2008
     (2829.9)
    I really hope that the government is watching what we do online. They might actually learn something about how the world works.

    There's always hope, y'know?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeff Owens
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2008
     (2829.10)
    It's been suggested that there's nothing preventing Google from fulfilling the order by delivering the 20+ terabytes of data on paper.


    If they have to go through with the order and they don't do it like this, it will be nearly as tragic as the fact that they're going through with it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorliquidcow
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2008
     (2829.11)
    This maybe isn't as bad as it sounds. Part of the condition of the order is that Viacom are only allowed to use the information to prove that there is a lot of piracy going on through YouTube, they're not allowed to use it to actually go after or contact any individual users.
    • CommentAuthorVaruker
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2008
     (2829.12)
    I think delivering all of the data on paper is a brilliant idea, you know, as long as it's double sided. Waste not, want not.
  5.  (2829.13)
    This maybe isn't as bad as it sounds. Part of the condition of the order is that Viacom are only allowed to use the information to prove that there is a lot of piracy going on through YouTube, they're not allowed to use it to actually go after or contact any individual users.


    Yeah, but once they've got the info, they've got the info. They can worry about getting a judge to let them pursue individuals later. It's like giving out a phone number on the condition no one call it.

    I'm not locking down my bunker or anything. Yet. I just think it sets a bad precedent.
  6.  (2829.14)
    Well, no. Legal fictions are defacto real in court. You can't just go "oh since we know anyway...." Allot of concerns here but the notion they can use restricted evidence in this case for other cases is not one.
  7.  (2829.15)
    Well, no. Legal fictions are defacto real in court. You can't just go "oh since we know anyway...." Allot of concerns here but the notion they can use restricted evidence in this case for other cases is not one.


    I get that if they used this evidence for purposes other than what they are allowed to now, they would get hit with massive legal penalties. What worries me is the possibility those restrictions could be lifted further down the line.

    Since I'm not a lawyer, I'll admit that could have nothing to do with how things really work. It just sounds like a foot in the door to me.

    What sounds like more of a barrier to Viacom doing anything nasty with the list is the shear size of it. If they want to sue individuals for watching copyrighted info, how are they going to pick? They can't sue them all. I guess the same logic didn't stop the music industry from turning some teens into "examples," but that created a media backlash Viacom won't be interested in courting, if there's a single brain in the boardroom.
    •  
      CommentAuthornoblelion
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2008 edited
     (2829.16)
    Viacom "backs off" YouTube Demand

    BBC News: 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. . . 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".


    Sigh of relief. Bullet dodged. Viacom was making some pretty tall demands...


    Edited because I'm an idiot.
    •  
      CommentAuthorliquidcow
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2008 edited
     (2829.17)
    Same story here in the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/15/googlethemedia.digitalmedia
  8.  (2829.18)
    Ok, I know that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind but... if they're going to take away our privacy, maybe we should demand the same of them, whoever "they" are. I vote we get a team of stalkers watching this judge dude all the time. [I mean, that probably makes no sense, obviously, but you guys probably get what I'm saying.]

    That's excellent, though, that they backed down. This was... alarming.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeff Owens
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2008
     (2829.19)
    @St.Bernard

    That feels really good.
    • CommentAuthorWordforge
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2008
     (2829.20)
    So does this mean it isn't going ahead?

    "The Law and Your Privacy: An Update
    As we let you know, YouTube recently received a court order to produce viewing history data. 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. (Read the official legalese here.)

    In addition, Viacom and the plaintiffs had originally demanded access to users' private videos, our search technology, and our video identification technology. Our lawyers strongly opposed each of those demands and the court sided with us.

    We'll keep you informed of any important developments in this lawsuit. We remain committed to protecting your privacy and we'll continue to fight for your right to share and broadcast your work on YouTube.

    Sincerely,
    The YouTube Team"