Google must divulge YouTube loghttp://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/7488009.stm
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.
The UK's Premier League association is also seeking class action status with Viacom on the issue, alledging YouTube has been used to watch football highlights.
Legal action
When it initiated legal action in March 2007 Viacom 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.
We urge Viacom to back off this overbroad request
Electronic Frontier Foundation
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.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Glad Viacom won this.wtf
Glad Viacom won this.Are you a contrarian or is there reasoning behind this?
Wilco is jewish, that's the only way to comprehend his position.
Wilco is jewish, that's the only way to comprehend his position.
antisemitism?
Glad Viacom won this.Are you a contrarian or is there reasoning behind this?
Wilco is jewish, that's the only way to comprehend his position.
antisemitism?
Chill dude, its a joke.
ekoj a slay the slayers of christ llihc
Now Viacom will know that TVC spent the majority of his time on YouTube look at Nick Cave music videos and uploads flagged with the keywords of "sodomy" and "incest".
I have on good authority that they're going to come after you!
They need to make an example.
Great, now a bunch of fucking big wigs will know I watch a ton of booty videos.[youtube=425,350]kvr09O2CaH8[/youtube]
If they want to make money off of something like that, there has to be some titties and dicks involved.
I always wondered why the fuck Google bought YouTube. It's probably the same class of dumb as buying Yahoo. We've always known that YouTube would end with a massive lawsuit, and the the good days were limited, but Google figured it was smart to buy into not only those problems, but YouTube's inability to even turn a profit. The only feasible reason I could see for Google buying them is to make themselves seem cool.
I always wondered why the fuck Google bought YouTube. It's probably the same class of dumb as buying Yahoo. We've always known that YouTube would end with a massive lawsuit, and the the good days were limited, but Google figured it was smart to buy into not only those problems, but YouTube's inability to even turn a profit. The only feasible reason I could see for Google buying them is to make themselves seem cool.
You'd have bought YouTube in a cocaine heartbeat if you had Google's money. All web businesses are haunted by the knowledge that they could be wiped out practically overnight by the appearance of a marginally more competitive service. Google has to do something to keep riding that wave, and turn that massive stock market equity into assets while it can. AOL is in big trouble, but imagine how bad a position it would be in without the TimeWarner deal. It was a terrible deal in an absolute sense, but compared to the alternative (watching its own stock fall away to nothing) it turned out ok for them. Now at least they're attached to something that is making money.
Maybe I'm not being clear enough: Google was, and is, playing with house money. Youtube was better than free to them; it boosted their stock by $22 billion. They can settle with Viacom like you or I would pay a parking ticket.
It wasn't making money for them anyway so how does that leave them fucked, fucked, fucked?
Quotebut I can't imagine Viacom settling for less than $10 billion
they are suing for $1 Billion.... so ... i can see them settling for less than $1 Billion....
or am i missing something here?
QuoteThe worst case scenario is that Google goes bankrupt, not that they pay a fine. Again, one decently viewed music video is enough to shut Google down completely. It is much mor elikely that Viacom wants to make them their bitch. Google fucked up HUGE here.
curious question : the copyright value you are basing this off isn't coming from the RIAA's antics vs. individuals is it?
QuoteWhat do you think they will try to do?
sue for $1 Billion and try to cut a deal going forward and try and use Youtube as a profit engine?
QuoteNo, it is based off the current US law's definition of 150k per violation.
I'd check what that relates to, from my copyrighting days, i'd doubt that extends to the internet.
QuoteThey will have enough ammo to do a lot of damage to google here. Worst case is that Google ends up owned by Viacom.
we shall see, i expect this to result in Viacom striking a slightly better deal than the other content providers, and taking a settlement.
QuoteWell, this sort of thing is anyone's guess, but keep in mind that based on 1 10+ year old music video, Viacom has enough ammo to bankrupt all of Google completely. Google is in huge trouble right now. Google did something extremely distinguished mentally-challenged here.
as long as they complied with any removal requests, i think they are protected.
I don't think google is in trouble, certainly not to the extent people think.
Google is now about to be bankrupted because of an old REM video :lol
- come on now, every single user agreed not to do this stuff when they signed up, and Youtube has and continues to take stuff down promptly when notified. They can fight this for sure.
TVC, as I said already, Google were in this business before they bought Youtube. I'm sure before they pulled the trigger, they weighed the risk of lawsuits against the risk of Youtube becoming bigger than THEM and decided which was worse. I'm not a google fanboy or anything, I'm just interested in the business side of this (which would be a lot easier to discuss without all the histrionics and table-pounding).
Google is now about to be bankrupted because of an old REM video :lol
- come on now, every single user agreed not to do this stuff when they signed up, and Youtube has and continues to take stuff down promptly when notified. They can fight this for sure.
I chose an old video to show the severity of the situation. If an incredibly old video has that many hits, well, Google has no chance. That one, olkd, REM video can bankrupt google. Want to know what happens when we incorporate Soulja Boy? It gets nuclear.QuoteTVC, as I said already, Google were in this business before they bought Youtube. I'm sure before they pulled the trigger, they weighed the risk of lawsuits against the risk of Youtube becoming bigger than THEM and decided which was worse. I'm not a google fanboy or anything, I'm just interested in the business side of this (which would be a lot easier to discuss without all the histrionics and table-pounding).
They surely did some sort of weighing, but it's always been fairly obvious they didn't take the legal quagmire of YouTube very seriously. There's never been a good reason for a huge, legal, giant company to touch YouTube. It's legal syphilis. Google made a big booboo worse than MS ever did.
*cues up trucks full of crow*
Lets see if we'll have to start unloading all this crow. So many dramatic proclamations in this thread. Amazing hindsight too, very impressive. They should've asked Evilbore before they bought youtube.
I can't wait for www.google-viacom.com
QuoteIf this somehow destroyed Google, that would just be another positive
how would the destruction of Google be a good thing? *baffle*
what kind of xfag emperor are you?QuoteIf this somehow destroyed Google, that would just be another positive
how would the destruction of Google be a good thing? *baffle*
*cues up trucks full of crow*
Lets see if we'll have to start unloading all this crow. So many dramatic proclamations in this thread. Amazing hindsight too, very impressive. They should've asked Evilbore before they bought youtube.
I can't wait for www.google-viacom.com
It's not hindsight. This was very evident at the time Google made the purchase. I'm not about to PUT UP OR SHUT UP though--I don't believe a worst case scenario will happen. I'm more interested in what sort of legal precedent this sets and what info Viacom derives from the shtuff they got. The ratio of legal to illegal content is kind of the elephant in the room when it comes to Youtube, and it will be very interesting just to see how bad that number is. That number, if properly derived, of course, could also potentially turn up in other hokey internet IP infringement cases. If this somehow destroyed Google, that would just be another positive, though. I'm not getting my hopes up for that.
google is an AD COMPANY uber alles. why wouldn't you root against them?
google is an AD COMPANY uber alles. why wouldn't you root against them?
yes, they get funding through ads, that doesn't make them an ad company. you buy things from a grocery store, but we don't call a grocery store a "money repository." It's a different way of funding. I'd rather have other places foot the bill then have to pay for gmail. There would be ads either way.
and if you were just joking, sorry for the serious business response :lol
google is an AD COMPANY uber alles. why wouldn't you root against them?
yes, they get funding through ads, that doesn't make them an ad company. you buy things from a grocery store, but we don't call a grocery store a "money repository." It's a different way of funding. I'd rather have other places foot the bill then have to pay for gmail. There would be ads either way.
and if you were just joking, sorry for the serious business response :lol
They don't get funding through ads. They are an advertising company. Advertising is their business, first and foremost. They are the BA DGUYS. Advertising is just about the equivalent to prostitution. Advertising is where all their profits come from. Doing the odd cool thing online just makes them not seem like assholes.
What should happen is that the judge should find Google not-guilty of any wrong-doing, since they have made a good-faith effort to prevent copyright violations, and since they always comply with requests to remove copyrighted content from the site. It's impossible for them to police a site as big as youtube and remove every single violation, and the judge should recognize this. Additionally, every user agrees to a TOS that specifically states that they will not upload copyrighted material.
Possibly a very (very) stupid question, but would it really be possible to sue Google to the point of bankruptcy?