1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

YouTubers FUCKED!

Discussion in 'Social Networking Sites' started by Uptownbulker, Jul 4, 2008.

  1. Uptownbulker

    Uptownbulker BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    477
    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.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. nicksor

    nicksor BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    76
    Likes Received:
    7
    You should only be concerned if you've uploaded copyrighted content to yT that was yanked..
     
  3. Uptownbulker

    Uptownbulker BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    477
    Or unless you have LOOKED at it!
     
  4. BozoClown

    BozoClown Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Likes Received:
    106
    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.
     
  5. Uptownbulker

    Uptownbulker BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    477
    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.
     
  6. a0rta

    a0rta Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2008
    Messages:
    214
    Likes Received:
    99
    Occupation:
    Travel Agency owner - Recently outsourced my clien
    Location:
    Brazil/Sweden
    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.
     
  7. Sj101

    Sj101 Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    9
    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 ;)
     
  8. Uptownbulker

    Uptownbulker BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    477
    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.
     
  9. cashcorp

    cashcorp Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2008
    Messages:
    430
    Likes Received:
    270
    Home Page:
    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.
     
  10. niche1

    niche1 Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2007
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    144
    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. :)
     
  11. synchro9x

    synchro9x Newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Shhhh...I heard Barack Obama was a muslim!

    -S9x
     
  12. punn3301

    punn3301 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    48
    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?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  13. tattoo

    tattoo Regular Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    36
    Occupation:
    vagrant
    Location:
    mars
    punn3301's got it right.

    DMCA protects youtube as long as they are making a good faith effort. viacom is trying to prove that YouTube is not making the effort.

    the outcome will be that they will settle aand youtube will pay annual royalties to viacom and people can upload as many damn mtv videos as they want
     
  14. jim48

    jim48 Newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    100
    I agree with what you said....The users of Youtube are so much and span so many countries...There is no ways they can catch everyone...The most is they will ask google for compesnation or ask google to stops all such things...

    my 2cents
     
  15. lazysurfer

    lazysurfer Junior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    124
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    BlackHat marketer
    I think a fuck "George Bush" is appropriate anywhere, and while I'm at it fuck "Barack Osama" too!

    BlackHatWorld For President!!!
     
  16. verified

    verified Newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    1
    thank god i use proxies from china hehe, I like to see how Viacom gonna fuck chinese communist state goverment banks and companies!
     
  17. Evil_SEO_Wizard

    Evil_SEO_Wizard BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    8
    I find this entire issue somewhat disturbing.

    This is simply a poorly disguised ploy by Viacom on two fronts.

    1. They are looking for ammo in lawsuits to make some extra cash for a failing enterprise because they have failed to keep up with technology. Another reason they wanted YouTube's source code. So they could replicate YouTube for their own selfish ends.

    and....

    2. Marketing Statistics. Need I say more? Probably.. Some people are thick, so I will elaborate. Viacom wants to know what is being watched. Can you think of better market research than what millions of people watch on YouTube daily? Hell no. The potential to cash in on that kind of data is simply staggering. You'll see dozens of spin-off shows based on user data, a revival of some other shows that people have been watching on YouTube because they were taken off the air...

    It's all a ratings game. Viacom cant make money if no one watches their shows. Who is going to pay top dollar for commercial time on a network that has crap ratings?

    YouTube is sucking up all the viewers, and now Viacom wants to cash in on it.

    I think this is complete bullshit. As far as I am concerned, the Judge ruling for Viacom to force Google to turn over that user data IS a violation of our privacy. That isn't Google's data. It's OUR data. Us, the users of YouTube.

    I'm of a mind that someone at Google should just go, "Whoooops!! Hit the wrong key and accidentally deleted all of that data.... Ah well. Shit happens!"

    And Viacom can just go and smoke a poll, the greedy asses.
     
  18. patrick6411

    patrick6411 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    Messages:
    279
    Likes Received:
    4
    Whats so crazy about this whole thing is that most of the networks are now putting series episodes online.

    I think that the ACLU should step in here. This in my opinion is a violation of our privacy.
     
  19. PhiltheBear

    PhiltheBear Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    93
    Of course there are other issues -

    Like YouTube/Google handing over my ISP details to Viacom when I'm not in America or subject to US law.

    Like Google saying that they won't appeal.

    Like the other part of the ruling which, rather bizarrely, allows them to look at details of people who take videos down. And who have done so in the past. How does that fit in with - 'we only want details of what's being watched'?

    Yes, it's a copyright infringement issue and YouTube/Google deserve to be busted if they break the law but this ruling goes way beyond that.
     
  20. punn3301

    punn3301 Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    48
    I agree. The ruling sucks in terms of internet users in terms of privacy. It's also blatantly obvious that Viacom will use the info they have obtained in more ways than they probably should. Which is more bullshit.

    These big corporations are so fucking slow to react and set in their ways that the world of online video has passed most of them by. They are all playing catch up. Some companies are still claiming it's all just a fad. Others are trying to kill the freedom and democracy for viewers that it has created by potentially limiting what websites we can visit.

    All of that stuff is true. But over the last day or so the only thing I've seen posted about this ruling is panic and fear about how users are going to start getting sued, I think that only distracts from the real issues of this decision.