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.
I live in Finland so Viacom doesn't affect here. Still, Google is giving them all the records of my personal video watching too.
Some might say "So what, nothing personal on youtube..." but for some of us there is. A lot of information about my friends, what kind of videos I watch, etc. are stuff that I don't want any third parties to know, really.
I think I don't quite yet need to wait for my mother to ask
Why did you get a "It seems you have been watching slash videos, would you be interested in these magazines..." mail?
but it won't be far away if this kind of stuff gets more common.
Fine print: I work in internet advertising.
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.
So anonymize the data. Ask your friendly local CS student for instructions. You can get all your statistics from that.
Oh, that isn't actually the reason you want the data? Yeah, thought so. DIAF
The users need to intervene as a class and request a protective order. They probably can't get the subpoena quashed but they probably can get the judge to limit what Viacom can do with the data and who can see it. They should ask him to limit access to the data to outside experts sworn to secrecy.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Why would Google even keep this info. We seriously need to learn to stop tracking this kind of stuff. It's like the Patriot act and libraries. When the act passed and libraries found out that checkout records of their users could be used in court most libraries simply stopped keeping a record of them. Companies like Google need to start doing the same.
Another company to purposely avoid
How? I don't buy stuff from Viacom, the TV stations do. As I don't watch much TV anyway my participation in a boycott isn't going to help any.
That organized RIAA boycott sure helped. The four foreign-owned record labels ignore it, and all losses it causes are attributed to piracy.
At first I thought "somebody needs to start blowing shit up" but then I realized that no matter what we do, it will be useless at best and probably counterproductive.
Now, I haven't RTFA (yet) but the summary sounds like they're going after people who watch YouTube videos. How in the hell am I supposed to know the copyright owner doesn't want it seen? Not wanting your video seen is as stupid as not wanting your music heard.
Is Hollywood that scared of Ster Wreck?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Just provide it as is the custom in trial : on paper
Then blame Viacom on the sudden disappearance of the Amazonian forest.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Who needs to win cases when you can receive millions of dollars in data simply by going through discovery proceedings?
In other news... Slashdot ordered to hand over the IP addresses and usernames and list of comments posted by every individual to read the "YouTube Must Give All User Histories To Viacom" thread on slashdot, including the identities of all "anonymous coward" viewers and posters, and their ip addresses.
CmdrTaco protested that the action would violate reader privacy, but the court dismissed it as mere speculation.
It seems Xyz Co. insisted that most of Slashdots' profits came from participants sparking illegal protests.
Quite frankly, if you consider that information private, you shouldn't be using YouTube, or most other Google services. Google is known for logging everything and keeping the logs for a long time, and they're not doing it to have logs when they're sued for them. And it's not just Google. YouTube, Blogger, Flickr, MySpace, Facebook and all the other services are essentially data generation facilities which use the primary function as bait. You could post your own flash videos on your own web site. Everything you need for that is freely available. But you don't, because you don't actually care about your privacy and a distributed web structure, so quit whining.
Yeah, but shouting at them doesn't work that well. I mean, who is going to stand around the whole time while I shout, "This guy's corporation is violating your personal privacy, subverting the courts into a money making operation instead of a justice system, twisting laws to suit his own needs, bribing members of congress with contributions to their campaigns or charities, harming innovation with restrictive IP laws, violating anti-trust laws via industry groups, and he's also badly dressed."
Really, the problem with protesting any of this is threefold:
1 - the problem is poorly understood by the general public
2 - protestors are starting to be ignored as whackos
3 - even if you can get the point across and have people understand why this is a problem, they will be apathetic
So, WhyTF do they need usernames and IP's? The popularity of a clip has NOTHING to do with WHO viewed it, simply how MANY people viewed it. Asking for usernames simply means they are either out to sue individuals or they want the information for profiling purposes which has nada to do with the lawsuit and so should not be allowed in discovery.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Thank you for pointing this out. Google does face additional liability if most videos are copyrighted material, and Viacom would likely be vindicated. That said, there's no reason to request usernames, IP addresses, etc., unless they were to go after the individual viewers. If they requested the IP/username for those who uploaded the protected works, however, that would make some sense.
freeflux-powered open-source blog
Funny... but also insightful. As much of an environmentalist as I am (and I am), I'd say give it to them on paper. Maybe compromise, on 100% post-consumer fibre paper.... They want reams and reams of information that they don't really have a right to, and a judge is going along with it, so give it to them. In a format that will take them a decade to sift through, by which time it won't be relevant any more.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
This is just as much reason to avoid Google, or any company that keeps any kind of logs of your behavior.
And yet you are posting on Slashdot...
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
Your mistake isn't not to trust Viacom, your mistake is to trust Google. You're exhibiting the "nobody ever got fired for buying (IBM|Microsoft)" attitude. Google's interests may be aligned with your interests at the moment, but there's no guarantee that it will stay this way. Remove the "do no evil" facade and you'll see that it's just another global corporation looking for ways to capitalize on its assets.
Abolish copyright. End the insanity.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
While I disagree with the judge's decision for various reasons, I feel no sympathy for your friends, and the plight induced here is not among the reasons I object to the decision.
Youtube is a publicly available website and, as such, videos on it are public displays. If they didn't want to broadcast their shenanigans, they shouldn't have made a public display of those shenanigans.
Government obtaining damaging information by thwarting the privacy of citizens is one thing, but this would be government obtaining damaging information by simply accessing content that it - and everyone else - was given implicit permission to view.
Your friends would do well to spend a little more time thinking through the repercussions of their actions. Even if this had never crept up, there are still countless other ways such reckless displays can fall into 'the wrong hands'.
Weird slashbug #455
The difference is that Viacom didn't sit outside youtube and record who went in and out. Youtube (as most sites) has a privacy policy that says they wont share the info, viacom walked into the store and demanded the books...
So on one end of the spectrum we have a mother who posed as a teen on myspace ending in a case that will make violating a TOS a federal offense analogous to hacking a network... and on this end of the spectrum Privacy Policies are completely worthless if a company simply guesses that there is wrong doings.
Is there any way to legally make myself a company instead of a person? I think I'd have way more rights that way.
Collector's Edition