Court orders YouTube to give Viacom video logs

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/pictu...pictureid=2117

"Dismissing privacy concerns, a federal judge overseeing a $1 billion copyright-infringement lawsuit against YouTube has ordered the popular online video-sharing service to disclose who watches which video clips and when."

"U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton authorized full access to the YouTube logs after Viacom Inc. and other copyright holders argued that they needed the data to show whether their copyright-protected videos are more heavily watched than amateur clips.

Attached to each entry is each viewer's unique login ID and the IP address for that viewer's computer.

Stanton ruled this week that the plaintiffs had a legitimate need for the information and that the privacy concerns are speculative.
Stanton rejected a request from the plaintiffs for Google to disclose the source code saying there's no evidence Google manipulated its search algorithms to treat copyright-infringing videos differently.

The court has yet to rule on Google's requests to question comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of Viacom's Comedy Central.
Together, the plaintiffs are trying to prove that YouTube has known of copyright infringement and can do more to stop it, a finding that could dissolve the immunity protections that service providers have when they merely host content submitted by their users.

Google did not say whether it would appeal the ruling or seek to narrow it.
Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Stanton should have considered constitutional free-speech rights, including a right to read or view materials anonymously.
He said a user's ID can sometimes include identifying information such as a first initial and last name.

This is not the first time Google has fought the disclosure of user information it had been stockpiling. While gathering evidence for a case involving online pornography, the U.S. Justice Department subpoenaed Google and other search engines for lists of search requests made by their users."

:source: Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
:view: Homepage: http://www.ap.org/

I read a similar article yesterday on this. Fucking pathetic...

Spoiler: Show

Judge Orders Google to Turn Over YouTube Records
Thursday July 3, 11:35 pm ET
By MIGUEL HELFT


SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in New York has ordered Google to turn over to Viacom a database linking users of YouTube, the Web’s largest video site by far, with every clip they have watched there.

The order raised concerns among users and privacy advocates that the online video viewing habits of tens of millions of people could be exposed. But Google and Viacom said they were hoping to come up with a way to protect the anonymity of YouTube viewers.

Viacom said that the information would be safeguarded by a protective order restricting access to the data to outside advisers, who will use it solely to press Viacom’s $1 billion copyright suit against Google.

Still, the judge’s order, which was made public late Wednesday, renewed concerns among privacy advocates that Internet companies like Google are collecting unprecedented amounts of private information that could be misused or could unexpectedly fall into the hands of third parties.

For every video on YouTube, the judge required Google to turn over to Viacom the login name of every user who watched it, and the address of their computer, known as an I.P., or Internet protocol, address. Both companies have argued that such data cannot be used to unmask the identities of individual users with certainty. But in many cases, technology experts and others have been able to link I.P. addresses to individuals using records of their online activities.

Google and Viacom said they had had discussions about ways to ensure the data is further protected to assure anonymity.

“We are disappointed the court granted Viacom’s overreaching demand for viewing history,” Catherine Lacavera, Google’s senior litigation counsel, said in a statement. “We are asking Viacom to respect users’ privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court’s order.”

Michael Fricklas, Viacom’s general counsel said: “We are investigating techniques, including anonymization, to enhance the security of information that will be produced.”

Mr. Fricklas added that Viacom would not have direct access to the information Google produces, and that its use would be strictly limited. Viacom would not, for example, be able to chase down users who illegally posted clips from “The Colbert Report” on YouTube.

“The information that is produced by Google is going to be limited to outside advisers who can use it solely for the purpose of enforcing our rights against YouTube and Google,” Mr. Fricklas said. “I can unequivocally state that we will not use any of this information to enforce rights against end users.”

In a letter sent Thursday, Google’s lawyers asked their counterparts at Viacom to agree to allow Google to remove information from the data that could potentially be used to identify individuals.

“We request that plaintiffs agree that YouTube may redact usernames and I.P. addresses from the viewing data in the interests of protecting user privacy,” wrote David H. Kramer, a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Viacom did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.

Privacy advocates said they welcomed Viacom’s commitment to using the information only for the purposes of the litigation, but they remained concerned about protecting user rights.

“Users should have the right to challenge and contest the production of this deeply private information,” said Kurt Opsahl, senior staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Such right is protected by law, he said.

Mr. Opsahl said that even records that did not include a user’s login name and I.P. address might be able to be associated with specific individuals. He said he believed the judge’s order violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.

Congress passed the law to protect the video rental records of individuals, after a newspaper disclosed the rental records of Robert H. Bork, then a Supreme Court nominee.

United States District Court Judge Louis L. Stanton, who is presiding over Viacom’s lawsuit against Google and YouTube, said that Google could “cite no authority barring them from disclosing such information in civil discovery proceedings, and their privacy concerns are speculative.” He said the information could help Viacom make its case.

“A markedly higher proportion of infringing-video watching may bear on plaintiff’s vicarious liability claim, and defendants’ substantial noninfringing use defense,” he wrote.

How is this not infringement on privacy? All they need to know is if more people are watching their copyrighted material compared to original material on YouTube. What the fuck do they need my IP Address for?

Anyone know what Google wanted to question Stewart and Colbert on?

It's absurd to think any sort of litigation would come of this though.

Small video clips from popular shows easily reach the 500,000 views mark in mere months.

I just read the article you posted up... interesting read.

I still don't get how they are allowed to do this. WHY do they need usernames and IP Addresses if they're simply trying to get numbers? And what if someone has their full name as their username? It's a breach of privacy and it's absurd that we have such douchebags in office that don't understand the law or new technology. How do we know this judge actually understands what this information could hold? I used to do Customer Service for a website and the amount of old people who couldn't even figure out how to use an OS was daunting. So how do we know this guy even knows what all this computer lingo means?

It just doesn't make sense that they're allowed to do this. We all know they're saying "we won't charge individuals" now but I bet you in twelve months time this information is going to be used to arrest a whole bunch of people.

I've used YouTube only a few times so far this year but it's these rights violations that are bugging me. Don't make no sense.

I know I'm a simple soul and I miss the whole point of the copyright shite, but if all they wanted was numbers, they could just go look at the clips, every single one shows how many views it has had, and if they wanted to compare it to other numbers they could go look at some other 'comparable' clips....

If I were and American, and if I actually gave a toss, I'd be petitioning the court to deny Viacom access to my data, as the information they claim they need is publicly accessible anyway, so their claim for the data is obviously not for the stated reasons.

I think this ruling is an abhorrent, but I can't say for sure it's unconstitutional as it's not the government seeking this information without warrant, and the judge has for all intense purposes issued a warrant to this private company. IMO the issue is unjustified as it goes beyond access to information related to infringement of copyrights held by viacom. They get to see that you watched your nephews birthday party for example. Okay not devastating news but it's none of their business.
What alarms me most is it sets precedence. We can only hope that the ruling is overturned on appeal.

For me this goes deeper than just having viacom know I viewed a clip of a monkey sniffing its finger after it scratched its backside. It is part of a personal profile system being built about us as individuals as a whole. Companies build customer data bases and sell them to marketers. My mailbox almost collapses under the weight of the junk mail addressed specifically to me from companies I have never heard of. Go into Sports Authority and when get to the checkout they will ask for your phone number (I always refuse). It's getting so that we are all stars in our own Truman show.


........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolEyes787

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/pictu...pictureid=2117

"Dismissing privacy concerns, a federal judge overseeing a $1 billion copyright-infringement lawsuit against YouTube has ordered the popular online video-sharing service to disclose who watches which video clips and when."

"U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton authorized full access to the YouTube logs after Viacom Inc. and other copyright holders argued that they needed the data to show whether their copyright-protected videos are more heavily watched than amateur clips.

Attached to each entry is each viewer's unique login ID and the IP address for that viewer's computer.

Stanton ruled this week that the plaintiffs had a legitimate need for the information and that the privacy concerns are speculative.
Stanton rejected a request from the plaintiffs for Google to disclose the source code saying there's no evidence Google manipulated its search algorithms to treat copyright-infringing videos differently.

The court has yet to rule on Google's requests to question comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert of Viacom's Comedy Central.
Together, the plaintiffs are trying to prove that YouTube has known of copyright infringement and can do more to stop it, a finding that could dissolve the immunity protections that service providers have when they merely host content submitted by their users.

Google did not say whether it would appeal the ruling or seek to narrow it.
Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said Stanton should have considered constitutional free-speech rights, including a right to read or view materials anonymously.
He said a user's ID can sometimes include identifying information such as a first initial and last name.

This is not the first time Google has fought the disclosure of user information it had been stockpiling. While gathering evidence for a case involving online pornography, the U.S. Justice Department subpoenaed Google and other search engines for lists of search requests made by their users."

:source: Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
:view: Homepage: http://www.ap.org/

---

It's amazing how this 81-year old Judge thinks he can rule on matters he can barely understand. IP addressed not personally identifiable? I guess if my IP address was my SSN then it'd be personally identifiable.. Oh, wait my SSN, name, address, phone are connected to this number. I'd call that personally indentifiable.

Fuck.