Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Must Give All User Histories To Viacom
psyopper writes "Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, to Viacom, which is suing Google for allowing clips of its copyright videos to appear on YouTube, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as 'speculative' and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four terabyte hard drives." Update: 07/03 18:05 GMT by T : Brian Aker, now of MySQL but long ago Slashdot's "database thug," writes a journal entry on how companies could intelligently treat such potentially sensitive user data.
nah, it's for ratings... they get audience statistics and they receive money for it too... who would turn down that deal?
Google is famous for paying people to use their services, but this time, it's gonna be a little bit enforced...
Onda Technology Institute
They're arguing that YouTube gets more viewership from copyrighted materials than non-copyrighted stuff, and they want the viewer logs to prove that. Then they'll go after Google and others for more money because they're profiting more from it.
I'm not saying that I agree with decision (I don't), but it's not like it's entirely unmotiviated.
On the other hand, I think people really need to start showing up outside the homes of the various lawyers, judges, and corporate executives involved and protest this kind of bullshit. They need to be followed into public places and shouted at about their behavior.
This is breaking european law. It is personal data (a log file with IP addresses is). So I really hope that Google do not have that sort of data in the US.
I will be reporting this to the danish data privacy agency. I suggest every other euopean reader here also contacts their local data privacy agency, or some EU institutuion.
OK, I'm back. There's no way to say it nice, so I'll not mince words - the summary is inflamatory garbage. TFA says
It doesn't say why Viacom needs user names; maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but TFA is pretty light on details too, and since IANAL reading the ruling won't do me much more good than a lawyer reading uncommented source code.
TFA says the EFF is getting involved.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Here's a list. They've got their hands in a lot of different areas, it'll be tough to avoid them entirely.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Here's the list of all the brands you now want to avoid because Viacom is being a bitch.
media networks,bet networks,bet,bet j,mtv networks, atomfilms, addictinggames, cmt, comedy central, gametrailers, harmonix, logo, mtv, mtv2, mtvn international, mtvu, mtv tr3s, neopets, nickelodeon - nick jr., nick at nite, noggin, parentsconnect, quizilla, rhapsody, shockwave, spike tv, the n, tv land, vh1, vh1 classic, vh1 soul, virtual worlds, xfire, filmed entertainment, paramount pictures corp, paramount pictures, dreamworks studios, paramount vantage, mtv films, nickelodeon movies, home entertainment, global reach, brand index
Here are some details about the Hon. Louis L Stanton:
http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/judge_info.php?id=31
It provides some ways to contact him (including a phone number) for those who might want to share their displeasure over his ruling.
It was breakable in the case you cite due to the fact they had acces to another set of data (imbd website IIRC) without anonymous users, and they could cross reference with that. This is a different scenario entirely.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
A company would keep this information for their own data mining, which is pretty much all that Google is interested in. User data, trends, interests.
Saving that data, as much as possible, is what they do!
:wq!
I believe he is making a Duke Nukem pun, Don't get your panties all in a bunch!
Google has NEVER fought to keep any of their customer's information private. The Chinese government made hundreds of arrests after Google handed over people's search patterns. If you want to keep something private, don't use Google.
It sounds to me like the judge is essentially saying that Google/YouTube didn't adequately demonstrate that privacy is being violated for such an order. Actually, from what I read I was fairly impressed with what the judge had to say and the rulings on some of the other issues involved (Viacom didn't get nearly as much as they were hoping for- source code), but it sounds like Google/YouTube did not do a very good job of demonstrating the privacy concerns.
I wish I had mod points right now. While I think the job very probably misevaluated the facts, he did so based on Google's prior statements that IP addresses are not enough to personally identify the users. There's a strong implication that that the judge would have decided differently had a showing been made that the log would allow personal identification of the viewers.
What this means is that, even though he seems to have made improper conclusions of fact, the judge is applying a rule of law that does take personal privacy into account. If someone could produce proper evidence that the log does allow personal identification, the judge might change his mind. Let's hope someone will rise to the challenge.
All that money you were making from it, have fun paying it all and then some to the hundreds of lawyers you are going to have to put on the payroll to defend it.
Here's a little secret for you guys, you can't turn over what you don't have. Stop tracking every thing we do and it'll be amazing how many lawsuits will stall before they even get started.
>You could post your own flash videos on your own web site.
How will that help when the reported problem is that Google is being ordered to turn over the *viewing* histories of its users?
I don't see anything about the users' viewing history in that article. It says he overturned the order for search and video identification algorithms.
YouTube is a US based company, so US laws pertain to it. The fact that some of it's users may not be from the US does not automatically make that information off limits from a judgment.
"But this one goes to 11!"
I believe Slashdot (as claimed in their FAQ) uses a sort of hash to match IP addresses, which can't be reversed back to the original value. I don't believe they actually store your IP address.
They also say (I think) how long they keep the Apache logs.
Quite different from Google, though supposedly Google will let you opt out of the everlasting tracking.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
All private videos were excluded. Only viewing info about public videos is included.
To explain, "oya" means "parent" and "ko" means "child" in Japanese--it's a rice-based dish (donburi) that includes both chicken and eggs.