Good Old Neon Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 From the Washington Post Michael ArringtonTechCrunch.com Thursday, July 3, 2008; 2:04 AM The ongoing Google/YouTube-Viacom litigation has now officially spilled over to users with a court order requiring Google to turn over massive amounts of user data to Viacom. If the data is actually released, the consequences could be far more serious than the 2006 AOL Search debacle. Louis L. Stanton, the senior judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued the opinion and order, which is here (PDF). 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." Meanwhile, the judge denied Viacom's request that Google turn over YouTube's source code as it could "cause catastrophic competitive harm to Google by sharing them with others who might create their own programs without making the same investment." I can understand why Judge Stanton, who graduated from law school in 1955, may be completely and utterly clueless when it comes to online videos services. But perhaps one of his bright young clerks or interns could have told him that (1) handing over user names and a list of videos they've watched to a highly litigious copyright holder is extremely likely to result in lawsuits against those users that have watched copyrighted content on YouTube, and (2) YouTube's source code is about as valuable as the hard drive it would be delivered on, since the core Flash technology is owned by Adobe and there are countless YouTube clones out there, most of which offer higher quality video. YouTube's core value is in it's network effect - the library of content along with its massive user base. The privacy fallout of this ruling is spectacular. The EFF has already chimed in, noting that the order is highly likely to be in violation of federal law. Judge Stanton doesn't seem to care much about that law, for now. And he clearly doesn't understand that far more data is being transferred than is necessary to comply with Viacom's core stated concern, which is to understand the popularity of copyright infringing v. non-infringing material. Viacom has asked for far more data than that, and there's only one use for that data: to sue individual users (or shake them down via the threat of lawsuit, which has been perfected by the RIAA) who have watched a few music videos or television shows on YouTube. I say this with the utmost respect, but Judge Stanton is a moron. And Google simply cannot hand this data over without facing a class action lawsuit of staggering proportions. Source - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8070300747.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 The fact that it's videos people have watched scares me. I can see tracking people who upload copyrighted content (though I wouldn't agree), but watching it? These days, with electronic and digital entertainment everywhere, people can't be expected to put on blinders everytime they see something that might be presented in a way that is illegal. Are we supposed to check every clip we see to see what kind of copyright laws apply to it. Also, the very nature of how You Tube works is that when you click on something to see what it is, the video has already started. That's ridiculous. This judge just has no clue about how modern digital media works. Good thing I never sign in anymore on you tube. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Steve Perry is going to sue my ass so bad! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 Yeah, and I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 John Garvey is going to sue my ass so bad! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Yeah, and I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Personally I think this will be used more as a scare tactic than an actual grounds for lots-o-lawsuits. Sure they could try suing everyone who ever watched an "illegal" clip, but I can't imagine they would do that. Even the RIAA knows to sue only choice people--cases they will settle and win. If you try going after everyone the legal mess is just too much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Yeah, and I Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Stewart Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 Something tells me I won't be affected by this in the least! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I expect google will make an appeal, but this is stupid. And yes Flick, your ass is grass. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 3, 2008 Author Share Posted July 3, 2008 I've read how in this new YouTube culture legal departments and marketing departments get in arguments about this stuff. Just like music, in the long run it's better for them to show this stuff for free. It's low-quality clips. It'll help spread the word but won't replace the real thing (to most people). Exactly. Not too long ago, I had a nostalgic craving for old Looney Tunes cartoons Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gogo Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I've read how in this new YouTube culture legal departments and marketing departments get in arguments about this stuff. Just like music, in the long run it's better for them to show this stuff for free. It's low-quality clips. It'll help spread the word but won't replace the real thing (to most people).This argument makes perfect sense to me, and to a lot of us, obviously, and it's similar to the argument to be made for allowing fans to share live shows. Many artists believe that it'll lead to greater exposure, more concert tickets sold, more albums sold, etc. But I've got a friend who is a full-time musician, sells his own CDs over the internet, and plays great live shows. He is choosing not to allow his shows on archive.org, because he feels the pure randomness of what is out there, and the fact that he can't control the quality of it, dilutes his ability to steer his career in the direction he'd like to be going. I've told him and told him that I can't see any downside to his having those shows available to anyone who'd like to be introduced to his music, but for him it's purely about controlling the flow of his product. So, as much as I disagree with him, I know he's got the right to make that decision for himself. I know that's not a 100% direct analogy to the YouTube thing, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can kind of see where the copyright-holders are coming from on this. And yeah, still a pretty stupid decision, in terms of the viewers' relationship to the material. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
deepseacatfish Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I just don't understand why the companies don't try and setup this content so they can make the adverti$ing dollars off of it instead of youtube/google, etc. Some of them do, but the vast majority of the content that would be "illegal" that I watch/watched through youtube was long out of print or quite hard to come by. I would welcome buying a high-quality copy but it's awesome to watch while it doesn't exist. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lamradio Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I'm gonna be really pissed if I get sued for watching the Peter Griffin and Michael Moore Dueling Farts video, over and over... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I expect google will make an appeal, but this is stupid. And yes Flick, your ass is grass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvJnXbQNgZE Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mfwahl Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I just don't understand why the companies don't try and setup this content so they can make the adverti$ing dollars off of it instead of youtube/google, etc. Some of them do, but the vast majority of the content that would be "illegal" that I watch/watched through youtube was long out of print or quite hard to come by. I would welcome buying a high-quality copy but it's awesome to watch while it doesn't exist.Yeah, hulu.com is pretty awesome if anyone hasn't checked that out yet. It's NBC and FOX shows with limited commercials. Also Daily Show & Colbert. Watch old Arrested Development. Watch new Simpsons. I think because it has FOX it also has F/X. Yeah, people are going to be watching shows for free. They can have a technological battle until the apocalypse or harness for their own benefit, make new fans/rake in some advertising money. And I agree, gogo, about controlling the product and I see your friend's point and respect it. I think the difference is that the products of Viacom and other major media outlets are vastly popular and copyright infringement is going to happen. By being global entities, they have already given some degree of controlling the product. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 it really is a double-edged sword. the value of the free marketing exposure is mind-numbing, but i can see an artists concern over quality control or, really, control over their product in general. the other issue i have w/ viacom...a lot of the content i would watch on youtube, is because they refuse to release it in any sort of format that i might even pay for, happily. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
augurus Posted July 6, 2008 Share Posted July 6, 2008 Judge obviously has no understanding or implication of the word address.I suppose he still favors spam, junk mail, and telemarketers. Scary vital news.BUMP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
remphish1 Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 An update... http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/biztech/07/15...y.ap/index.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Wilco Worshipper Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I'm gonna be really pissed if I get sued for watching the Peter Griffin and Michael Moore Dueling Farts video, over and over...LOL...OMG!!! My girls watch THAT all the time!!! But then wonder WHY I won't let them watch the actual show. Oiy!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Luckily the BBC doesn't give a damn about anything, which is why my watching of Fawlty Towers and Monty Python's Flying Circus will go unhindered... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.