It’s a brave new world, I tell you…
If you wanted to keep your obsession with hyperactive YouTube phenomeon “Fred” a secret, you’re in for some bad news. A federal judge yesterday ordered that records of every video watched on YouTube be handed over to Viacom as part of its ongoing $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Google.
According to the ruling:
The motion to compel production of all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website is granted.
In case you were wondering::
Defendants’ “Logging” database contains, for each instance a video is watched, the unique “login ID” of the user who watched it, the time when the user started to watch the video, the internet protocol address other devices connected to the internet use to identify the user’s computer (”IP address”), and the identifier for the video.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation is up in arms over the ruling and has a breakdown of how this decision may actually violate federal law.
Gee, ya think? Considering that my husband, myself (for both personal and business reasons) and all our kids use this computer from time to time, including looking up things on YouTube, I have to laugh at the profile that they’d try to construct on us as a user. But as whythawk at Scholars&Rogues points out…it could have far more serious outcomes:
Yahoo turned over user information to the Chinese government that was used to track down a dissident journalist, Shi Tao, and send him to a labour camp. It was the moment that the Internet knew sin.
Now, Judge Louis Stanton has decided to force Google/YouTube to disclose a complete set of data on all YouTube users. As TechCrunch reports: “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.”"
TechCrunch goes on to express concern that this throws open the opportunity for copyright holders to sue individuals for watching their materials on YouTube. That [should be the] least of anyone’s concerns.
Over the past few years democrats and other “subversives” in places like Iran, Morocco, Egypt, Zimbabwe, China and other hell-holes of civil liberties have used their camera-phones to send broadcasts directly from the front-line of vicious conflicts.
Imagine if that information is used to not only trace, but eliminate, those “subversive” elements. This goes beyond the slippery slope straight into the abyss of immorality and oppression.
Filed Under: Internet news
Tags: Ethics, Google, Internet news, Viacom, Yahoo, YouTube
No Trackbacks To “Judge Orders YouTube To Give User Data To Viacom“
thats right
And the best irony moment is the judge used Youtube’s OWN defense saying that the data they collect couldn’t be used to identify individuals, to slap down their argument that the data could be used to violate people’s privacy.
Off Topic. What on earth is going on with MSNBC. They have not shown NEWS since before 7 pm. All they have on is crappy old stories. No News!
I always want to know more about a judge when they make dubious decisions that favor corporate interests at the expense of the public. I don’t care which side you’re on, ideology plays a role in how judges form their opinions and how they interpret the law.
From wikipedea:
The more they squeeze… the more slips through their fingers.
rduke @ 5:
is that a handjob joke?
Crooks and Liars may want to reconsider embedding youtube videos on its own web page - put your money where your mouth is.
Why are we worried?
President Obama is going to “monitor” this stuff.
No worries.
Oh well, no more Youtube viewing. That’s the way it goes.
I knew this would happen sooner or later. Way back in the giddy, messy free-for-all of the late ’90s when everyone was jumping online, nothing was heard but enthusiasm for the endless freedom, liberty, etc. the internet would provide. At the time I thought, “Yeah, which is all well and good, I see from whence the rhetoric comes - but isn’t every step of the journey, from computer to modem to phone line to server, OWNED by someone, and is thus under THEIR control?”
When communication is mediated, the power is in the hands of the mediator.
Here’s a link to the story. Says “Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google’s liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.”
I think the viewers are safe, but the uploaders could be hearing from Viacom.
The moral of the story is, don’t keep logs any longer than legally required. If you don’t have the data, it can’t be subpoenaed. Same thing goes for email, although email might need to be encrypted, since no one knows if and how long ISPs are archiving the data.
In another big brother story, the Dept of Justice may be tracking cell phone users whereabouts.
But in the end, I have the answers. If any of the parties are doing anything unconstitutional, then simply give them immunity.
God, not more hyperventilating.
I’m watching this thing. The Judge is a clueless old coot who got it all upside down and this has a ways to drag through appeals and will be an unworkable clusterfuck anyway.
Tell me, do any of you actually do deep immersion in core issue stuff at both macro and micro levels or do you just do spasmodic jerking of knees in some reflexive spasm each time a new ridiculous gob of crud rolls down the pipe?
What’s the problem? Would it be any different if Viacom bought all the shares in YouTube and then owned the data by right, rather than needing a judge order it into their possession? Surely once your data is with a corporation it’s with all of them, because they pass it around and sell it to one another for money. In this case Viacom has worked out a way of getting this valuable data without having to pay for it.
Johnny2Bad @ 8:
your right ..why worry mcBush will monitor this stuff.
i didn’t like the sound of this when i read the headlines on the googlenews page earlier today…
thanks for all the professional elaboration, with links!
any story about messin’ with my tubes, i get nervous…
Big Brother is here. Not coming. Here.
Presumably this can be appealed, but it won’t matter in the long run.
Those of us who want some semblance of privacy in our lives are screwed. And, just for the record, I blame a lot of “us” for not crying out louder for the principles of the 4th Amendment while it was being eviscerated by the War on Drugs.
I’d like to see some movement by our elected leaders to just get rid of #4, since it is only for show anyway at this point.
Perhaps a strong movement to get rid of it would wake some people the f**k up.
Chris Rich @ 11:
Yup. Much Ado About Nothing. Although why do I get the feeling that somewhere Ted Stevens is still cursing those Tubes?
Karike @ 3:
oh… i didn’t realize, at first, that you were referring to just tonight… i do miss countdown…
i’m guessing “holiday” break…
but, am i the only one to have concerns about what seems to me to be a more reserved delivery?
since timmy’s untimely death?
Julian Todd Says: What’s the problem? Would it be any different if Viacom bought all the shares in YouTube and then owned the data by right, rather than needing a judge order it into their possession? Surely once your data is with a corporation it’s with all of them, because they pass it around and sell it to one another for money. In this case Viacom has worked out a way of getting this valuable data without having to pay for it.
Scuse me, but since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about, how about Google just give them the stupid billion and be done with the lawsuit. But, I digress. Google could buy Viacom with CASH.
can they appeal this ruling?
lawyers have to be good for something!!!
not the least bit off topic read the end of america by naomi wolf and then pass it on to a friend today
Karike @ 3:
something is brewing, like maybe attacking Iran and Pakistan as a gesture in celebration of Independence day.
WTF?
Viacom has no need to know where I go on youtube.
What kind of “profiles” can they create from tracking users? Am I dangerous because I watch Bob Marley and John Lennon videos? Under Hoover’s FBI, I would have been labeled a subversive.
What next? Will they be telling C&L that they have to hand over the IDs of everyone that comes to this site?
I’m glad to see that others are outraged by this…and I’m furious at the cavalier attitude some of you knuckleheads show! Every time our privacy is eroded even slightly, our freedom is eroded. I am all for protecting copyrights, but I’m more in favor of protecting privacy rights.
The “Much Ado About Nothing” attitude and Chris @11’s sneering comments are great examples of why and how our representatives and judges are able to get away with whittling away at our rights. That “whatever, it’s just your knee jerk reaction” attitude is ignorant and useless. True, this particular decision isn’t on par with the destruction of habeas corpus, but it’s in the same category–yet another brick removed from the wall separating “big brother” from individual rights.
And if you think invoking “Big Brother” is excessive, you’re living in a delusional little fantasy world. 1984 is alive and well, and this YouTube decision is a step along that path.
Then there is this , the Senate bill rider that will allow the government to spy on e commerce.
There is no end to the treachery.
Being that we are now compelled to view corporations such as Viacom as “persons” with all the attendant individual rights that entails,I can only assume that it is MY RIGHT as a “person” to demand information pertaining to any and all people of personal interest I feel warrant investigation.
Come to think of it,my neighbor has been acting mighty suspicious of late…
I hope they don’t mess with XTube.
The worst part of this is that in all the calls for boycotting Viacom, nobody seems all that bothered that Google actually possesses 12 terabytes of data on the people that use their service. I use their services for mail, docs, and rss feeds, but I’m seriously questioning that right now. It’s only a matter of time before the hyperlinks that you click are stored for analysis.
Perhaps it’s time to reboot the internet.
From the pdf file, the Judge’s orders:
The reason:
In other words, they *only* want all that information to evaluate whether Viacom’s copyrighted material was being viewed more frequently than, say, user-produced video.
Sounds rather thin to me.
Since all that data fits on a just a few massive hard drives, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to simply search the hard drives and determine how many times each video was watched - without turning over all the user data.
Or for that matter, create a data file with ONLY the necessary info, without any IP numbers, usernames, etc.
abarts @ 28:
Or eskimotube. :)
it is apparent that the judge doesnt understand how users connect to the internets
most connect through dynamic ip…which means that unplug your modem and bang, a new ip is assigned to you
additionally, what constitutes original material? clips? clips with commentary? or full tv shows and movies
also, there are now thousands of file sharing sites and linking sites….many of which are offshore
viacom wants money
and i sure as shit dont want some big company to know my viewing habits…when they dont own the site
oh, and when are we gonna bash on barack for continuing to go further and further towards the middle?
I think the burden of proof is on Stanton to show that providing dates, times, videos watched, IP addresses and unique ids which can be traced back to an individual would NOT have a privacy implication.
Also, not being a legal minded individual, how do the details of these records help in a copyright infringement help?
this isn’t about big brother. it’s about a company losing money because some person can take a video and put it up there and the people who made that video are not making any money on that video.
i could go make a website called liars and crooks and take every word from this site and make it mine. would anyone here be mad at that. its not stealing , i just happen to be a fan of this site and want people to enjoy it. Not that i want to , just making a case.
None to pleased about this if this concerns international users. Where I live this kind of information is constitutionally protected. Youtube is violating their agreement with me concerning my account details and has allowed this data to be copied by a third party who I have no agreement with whatsoever. Maybe I should offer a retroactive license to youtube where they are allowed to distribute my account details to a third party for a nice lump sum.
Corporations not have the rights of a real human beings; the corporations’ rights actually *trump* those of real human beings.
Filthy Harry @ 6:
Actually a Frank Herbert reference regarding the layout of authoritarian regimes…
But if you cannot relate to that … fit it in your mind anyway you can.
BC @ 33:
Quoting from the Judge’s decision:
In other words, they *only* want all that information to evaluate whether Viacom’s copyrighted material was being viewed more frequently than, say, user-produced video.
Sounds rather thin to me.
Since all that data fits on a just a few massive hard drives, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to simply search the hard drives and determine how many times each video was watched - without turning over all the user data.
Or for that matter, create a data file with ONLY the necessary info, without any IP numbers, usernames, etc.
I hope Viacom goes under.
Johnny2Bad @ 8:
No worries? The guy’s no better than anyone else, and a hierarchy is not its leader.
Don’t worry–the chances are that at least two of the three judges on the appellate panel have watched porn on YouTube.
Phantom(God of Hellfire) @ 41:
Don’t purchase their products…
Well, we have one patriot and it not Obama:
“As you already know, I am working hard to strip retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated with the President’s illegal warrantless wiretapping program from the bill.
But that is not the only problem. This FISA legislation gives enormous powers to the government: including the ability to read emails and text messages and listen to phone conversations of anyone communicating with their family members, friends, associates, reporters, ANYBODY who may be overseas – all with zero court review. Nobody should be supporting this legislation.
We can defend our country from terrorists while at the same time protecting the rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution. It’s time for our elected officials to stand up for the values on which our country was founded.”
Feingold, of course.
Judges that don’t know how to use a mobile phone shouldn’t be trying cases involving high tech.
Boycott the motherfuckers. Yes, Crooks and Liars, that means no more clips of Colbert and Stewart. I know it sucks, I like them too. But seriously, fuck Viacom. You promote their programs for free, and this is the thanks we get? Choke on my balls.
Clarification: “Choke on my balls” was directed to Viacom, not Crooks and Liars.
Like I said, hyperventilating. Viacom would choke on the data load and have very little to show for it. All the hidebound ‘Old media’ is on the edge of dying and it is hyperparanoid about this whole thing and has failed miserably to just come up with an adjusted biz model.
They are too