Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Court orders YouTube to give Viacom video logs

  1. #1
    IdolEyes787's Avatar Persona non grata
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    State of Grace
    Posts
    29,112
    "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: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
    Homepage: http://www.ap.org/
    Last edited by Hairbautt; 07-04-2008 at 01:13 PM. Reason: Wrapped with quotes, removed italics and new image.

  2. News (Archive)   -   #2
    Skiz's Avatar (_8(I)
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CO
    Age
    40
    Posts
    29,631
    I read a similar article yesterday on this. Fucking pathetic...

    Spoiler: Show



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    The FST Last.fm group

  3. News (Archive)   -   #3
    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?

  4. News (Archive)   -   #4
    Skiz's Avatar (_8(I)
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    CO
    Age
    40
    Posts
    29,631
    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.



    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    The FST Last.fm group

  5. News (Archive)   -   #5
    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.

  6. News (Archive)   -   #6
    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.

  7. News (Archive)   -   #7
    惡魔的提倡者
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    743

    Question Mark

    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.


    ........

  8. News (Archive)   -   #8
    Poster BT Rep: +1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Age
    28
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by IdolEyes787 View Post
    "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: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •