And fuck a bunch of Google!

"Google Ordered to Hand Over All YouTube User Data
Thursday , July 03, 2008


Ever check out YouTube? Have a user name and password for it? Then Viacom's going to find out all about what you like to watch.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the online video-sharing Web site, owned by Google, has to turn over all its user logs to Viacom, the mega-corporation that owns MTV, Paramount Pictures, Comedy Central and VH1, among others.

The Ruling:

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/viacom_youtube.pdf

Viacom sued Google last year, claiming that YouTube willfully infringed its copyrights by letting its users post clips from "South Park" and "The Daily Show" willy-nilly.

YouTube, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, argues it doesn't have to take down those clips until Viacom complains about each and every one.

Viacom says that's bunk, and is joined in its lawsuit by the Premier League of England's Football Association, which doesn't like pro soccer highlights turning up on YouTube.

Judge Louis L. Stanton actually delivered a mixed ruling — he refused Viacom's demand that Google turn over YouTube's source code, the software that runs the site, agreeing with Google that that was a trade secret.

But he used Google's own argument, explained here on Google's own site, that revealing users' Internet Protocol addresses — which identify every single computer, server, cell phone or toaster connected to the Internet — does not constitute an invasion of privacy.

Google must now turn over all its data about YouTube visitors on four 1-terabyte hard drives, a staggering amount of data, as well as copies of all clips it has ever taken down. (One terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes.)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco organization that defends the rights of Internet users, quickly protested the ruling, saying it "threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users."

Viacom wants the data to prove that copyrighted "stolen" material is more popular among YouTube visitors than original "user-generated" material.

It sought the source code to show that YouTube does have software in place to filter out some objectionable content — for example, YouTube manages to keep pornography and explicit nudity off the site — but chooses to allow copyrighted material as part of its business model.

There is no indication Viacom will seek to track down individual users. It would have to contact users' Internet service providers — for example, Time Warner Cable, Verizon or America Online — to do so, and it's not clear if the ISPs would be compelled to turn over the data, especially in a civil case.

Google is likely to appeal the ruling.

__________________

You should only be concerned if you've uploaded copyrighted content to yT that was yanked..

Or unless you have LOOKED at it!

__________________

Youtubers are safe, Viacom cannot go after the millions of people who have uploaded copyrighted content.

Google is the only one the cages on this one. There is more money to be obtained from google by having a single and focused huge fight, rather than multiple small league fights with users.

__________________
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BozoClown For This Useful Post:
Superman (06-29-1938), Batman (04-30-1938), Chuck Norris (03-09-1940)

Wrongo!

Google will settle with Viacom and very much like RIAA and ASCAP, Viacom will select a few YouTube users to sue, just to make the point stick.

I assure you athat lawsuts against YouTube members will follow as any user who has uploaded copywrited material or users who may have viewed copyrighted materials without payment of royalties will be subject to scrutiny.

Original material will then however becaome king and those who licence such material will become wealthy beyond all your dreams.

__________________

Well.. I don't think it ever can be illegal to watch copyrighted material on YouTube. If so each and every video has to say that it got copyright and that one have to pay a fee for watching. And the risk for getting caught or even get into trouble for uploading materials are so little so I wouldn't care about it.

Maybe Google will have to pay some money but they can afford it.

They are not going to sue the viewers. From what i read eailer today, they will simply be used to "prove" that those videos were on youtube. But I'm still baffled about the fact that youtube is getting fucked here when it should be the uploader getting fucked. Oh well... FUCK BUSH

Bush has nothing to do with this, Knucklehead!

Stop your irrational and emotional Bush-bashing for a moment; take a deep breath and rejoin reality!

This is about copyright law.

When you view copyrighted materials without having paid royalties to do so, you are liable for copyright infringement.

I am trying to explain this to you in a reasonable and rational manner but you are apparently so involved in your political rhetoric that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

You don't get the fact that Google has been cited merely for making the referrals to YouTube.

__________________

Wait,
Did I read you right uptown?
Google-A search engine, is being charged for.... sending traffic to youtube?
I thought ISP laws just like the ones that protect this forum protected sites like youtube and google as wells.

__________________

How the hell does Bush become part of this? I have to agree with uptown, stick to the issue and keep the fuck bush crap out of it.

Sorry to inform you that not all of the US and Worlds problems have been caused by George Bush! That gets really old quickly and dilutes the issue.....

Start a hate George Bush thread if you like........but don't bore many of us with the same old far left winger bullshit.

Let's keep on topic. That would be quite refreshing.

Shhhh...I heard Barack Obama was a muslim!

-S9x

okay, dude you're overreacting here. every article I've read on this so far says Viacom was granted the right to know what videos were watched. Not what videos were uploaded.

It looks like Viacom wants to fuck Google by proving that the popularity of Youtube is mostly a result of stolen content. Google says that isn't the case and that they take down stolen content when hit with a DMCA.

Viacom says that's BS and they think Google could take down the content faster, but doesn't because in the long run the stolen content actually frickin helps YouTube and Google increase traffic and make money.

That is why Viacom wanted the source code. All they had to do was look at it and show the judge that Youtube could easily add the code it needs to filter stolen content. Then they would say that stolen content is their main source of content and argue that Youtube doesn't take down stolen content, not because it can't, but because it doesn't want to because that is how the site gets most of it's traffic and makes it's money.

Maybe I'm wrong, but every article I've read on the decision has someone from Viacom saying that they are not going to go after users. Looking at what they demanded from Youtube, it isn't too hard to see what plan of attack they may be trying to take. Prove Youtube can filter stolen videos and then prove that because stolen content accounts for the majority of youtube traffic that the reason youtube isn't filtering stolen content is because they know it will put a huge hit on their bottom line and potentially put them out of business.

I don't think users are in any trouble and making posts like this saying youtubers are "FUCKED" is a tad irresponsible, don't you think?