YouTube privacy at risk in Google-Viacom ruling

BTP

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9983511-7.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=NewsBlog

July 2, 2008 6:45 PM PDT
YouTube privacy at risk in Google-Viacom ruling
Posted by Steven Musil 5 comments

Google scored a legal victory in keeping its search source code secret from Viacom, but YouTube users were not so fortunate with their privacy.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the search giant doesn't have to turn over the code to Viacom, which filed a $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Google in 2007. In granting Google's motion for a protective order, U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton in Manhattan agreed with Google's characterization of the source code as a trade secret that can't be disclosed without risking the loss of business.

"YouTube and Google should not be made to place this vital asset in hazard merely to allay speculation," the judge said. "A plausible showing that YouTube and Google's denials are false, and that the search function can and has been used to discriminate in favor of infringing content, should be required before disclosure of so valuable and vulnerable an asset is compelled."

The judge also denied Viacom's motion for Google to produce source code for its Video Identification Tool, which helps copyright notify Google of copyright infringement.

However, the judge granted a Viacom motion that records of every video watched by YouTube users, including their login names and IP addresses, be turned over to the entertainment giant.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the ruling a threat to YouTube users' privacy.

"The court's order grants Viacom's request and erroneously ignores the protections of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users," the EFF said in a statement.

At stake in the legal battle is a key part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the 1998 law that shields Web site owners from copyright infringement involving material published by users. The "safe harbor" provision in the law can protect against infringement claims as long as copyrighted material is removed upon notification.

After the suit, YouTube launched an antipiracy tool that checks uploaded videos against the original content in an effort to flag piracy.

First, Net Neutrality....and now, this. Can I get a "Fuckin' YIKES!"?

RonTheDM

This might be almost as catastrophic as the list of things people searched for on AOL, which got really ... really weird.

WHAT WE LOOK AT IS OUR BUSINESS.

PeregrineFalcon

What exactly does this accomplish? Listing the viewers isn't going to catch the people who uploaded the file.

Also, they can have fun filtering through "The following 3 million people watched Don't Tase Me Bro - Da Remix" to find anything relevant.

tbloxham

I just hope google has the common decency to present them the data, printed out in the form of ten million pages of tab delimited values on standard size letter paper with no end row seperation printed in italic comic sans font. So in order to use the data Viacom will have to type it into a computer by hand. Also, I'd like the data arranged in descending rows, so the top row would be a huge list of all the user ID's who had ever used google, and the next row all their IP addresses and so on.

That would be full provision of data in a readable format, just a very complex readable format.

Seriously, this is a major breach of privacy. What if I don't want Viacom to know what I have been looking at? If I did, I would go to a viacom website. I don't mind them wanting to know say, how much piracy has been going on, and if they wanted a list of videos that had been watched, by region without the names then I would say "OK". But this is absurd, they are clearly planning to pull a few names out of the hat and string them up as an example. All they will do is find someone who has watched lots of weird porn, and stolen videos so that they can bring up both at the trial and erase any public sympathy for the poor guys.

Impersonator

tbloxham wrote: »

I just hope google has the common decency to present them the data, printed out in the form of ten million pages of tab delimited values on standard size letter paper with no end row seperation printed in italic comic sans font. So in order to use the data Viacom will have to type it into a computer by hand. Also, I'd like the data arranged in descending rows, so the top row would be a huge list of all the user ID's who had ever used google, and the next row all their IP addresses and so on.

That would be full provision of data in a readable format, just a very complex readable format.

This. I wouldn't mind registering just to think that someone out there working for Viacom will be like: "Impersonator... just 9,999,999,999,999,999 more usernames to go "

Dracil

They were ordered to hand it over on a set of 4 terabyte drives.

Write a paper letter to Viacom saying you won't buy their products because of this violation of privacy.

Or at least call them.

JaysonFour

It's going to be like a remake of the Napster wars, with Viacom playing the RIAA and more ordinary people getting it financially in the butt because they just wanted to watch an old episode of a show that they remember from childhood.

Willeth

Surely if Google can prove that they have made a concerted effort to remove copyrighted material from the service then this is completely pointless.

AbsoluteZero

Sounds like a fantastic fountain of data from a marketing standpoint. I bet those boys are just salivating.

apotheos

tbloxham wrote: »

Seriously, this is a major breach of privacy. What if I don't want Viacom to know what I have been looking at?

Lets take a spin that is bound to be unpopular: personal responsibility.

We all knew YouTube was hosting a shitton of copytrighted material. Most of us enjoyed the fuck out of it while it happened. Many of us deliberately participated in what Viacom is suing about, but even the ones that didn't couldn't help but be aware it was going on around them.

All those people don't have a leg to complain on. You participated in a site doing something pretty clearly a violation of copyright, and as such it is pretty much obligatory that the courts are exposing your behavior to the holder of the IP. The only word I can use to describe this ruling is "appropriate".

Now if they are exposing all the records, not just ones tied to known copyright violations, that would be something to get in a snit about.

Willeth

apotheos wrote: »

Now if they are exposing all the records, not just ones tied to known copyright violations, that would be something to get in a snit about.

From my understanding, they are. The intent of this is to prove that the majority of Youtube viewings are for copyrighted material, not user-created material.

The first sentence from http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html:
"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."

RandomEngy

If they just want to prove that most viewings are of copyrighted material, don't they just need the view numbers for each video? Putting names and IP addresses along with them does strike me as a huge privacy violation.

Also, I imagine the data they are asking for would be rather large.

apotheos

Willeth wrote: »

apotheos wrote: »

Now if they are exposing all the records, not just ones tied to known copyright violations, that would be something to get in a snit about.

From my understanding, they are. The intent of this is to prove that the majority of Youtube viewings are for copyrighted material, not user-created material.

The first sentence from http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html:
"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."

Even then, you know, I'm not sure a snit is warranted. I guess if you were clueless and had NO IDEA YouTube was hosting that stuff you could take umbrage, but honestly I'm not sure I believe people are that dumb and know how to use YouTube. Especially not during the height of violations.

PeregrineFalcon

apotheos wrote: »

Even then, you know, I'm not sure a snit is warranted. I guess if you were clueless and had NO IDEA YouTube was hosting that stuff you could take umbrage, but honestly I'm not sure I believe people are that dumb and know how to use YouTube. Especially not during the height of violations.

I submit the content of YouTube itself as proof that yes, people are that dumb, and they will upload videos of themselves engaged in activities proving their monumental stupidity.

JM

This makes me wonder though, what exactly are we talking about here? Do they check if people watch old shows on youtube? Listen to music? Does this also include game footage (let's plays, speedruns, etc.)? What about ads? or is this just limited to material owned by viacom?

...

Though honestly i can see this going absolutely nowhere. as in, there will be a huge tantrum about this soon and then everything calms down like nothing has ever happend and we all forget about this incident.

redfield85

Back in they day, they took down a video I made with footage I shot at a few live TNA Wrestling events. Eventually, TNA announced before events that there was to be no videoing. What jerks.

Willeth

I wonder how much they'll take into account the intent of the owner. For example, Tenacious D are cool with anyone recording and distributing their stuff as long as they're not selling it.

Racist Joke

What I would like to know is how they are getting people's names? Last I checked, you didn't need to give out your name when watching Youtube.

elevature

Willeth wrote: »

I wonder how much they'll take into account the intent of the owner. For example, Tenacious D are cool with anyone recording and distributing their stuff as long as they're not selling it.

I've been reading a lot about copyright issues lately, mostly in regards to music, but with regards to video and writing and other things as well. And I've invariably found that the intent of the owner/creator is of very little importance to the big companies who are pulling all this shit. There are lots of bands that are cool with people sharing their stuff, but that won't stop the RIAA or the record labels from suing the fuck out of some grandma if they can. Somehow I don't see Viacom being any different.

Savant

apotheos wrote: »

tbloxham wrote: »

Seriously, this is a major breach of privacy. What if I don't want Viacom to know what I have been looking at?

Lets take a spin that is bound to be unpopular: personal responsibility.

We all knew YouTube was hosting a shitton of copytrighted material. Most of us enjoyed the fuck out of it while it happened. Many of us deliberately participated in what Viacom is suing about, but even the ones that didn't couldn't help but be aware it was going on around them.

All those people don't have a leg to complain on. You participated in a site doing something pretty clearly a violation of copyright, and as such it is pretty much obligatory that the courts are exposing your behavior to the holder of the IP. The only word I can use to describe this ruling is "appropriate".

Now if they are exposing all the records, not just ones tied to known copyright violations, that would be something to get in a snit about.

The law has a remedy for this that isn't nearly as overreaching as what is going on in this case. The DMCA takedown procedures provide for a multistep process in which content holders can demand that the content be taken down and have it done so in a timely fashion while providing the uploader with recourse if they believe the takedown was incorrect.

Viacom may be getting tired of sending takedown notices, but that is too fucking bad because that is the law and they signed onto it. The content holders were key players in drafting those provisions.

Also, there is plenty of gray area in copyright. While uploading full episodes in bite size formats may be clearly a violation, what about taking snippets for quotation or to show errors or misbehavior? Fair use doctrine means that the legality of using copyrighted material is not a clear cut matter. Also, the blanket violation of privacy enabled by this decision has a chilling effect on free speech and curtailing the using such material for noncommercial ends in ways that may ruffle the feathers of the nominal copyright holder.

Edgie

elevature wrote: »

Willeth wrote: »

I wonder how much they'll take into account the intent of the owner. For example, Tenacious D are cool with anyone recording and distributing their stuff as long as they're not selling it.

I've been reading a lot about copyright issues lately, mostly in regards to music, but with regards to video and writing and other things as well. And I've invariably found that the intent of the owner/creator is of very little importance to the big companies who are pulling all this shit. There are lots of bands that are cool with people sharing their stuff, but that won't stop the RIAA or the record labels from suing the fuck out of some grandma if they can. Somehow I don't see Viacom being any different.

This. Tons of bands love people listening to their music. Most of their money comes from shows or merch. The more people that know your music, the higher the chance of you getting people at your shows. And that's just the economical reasoning.

Raere

Perhaps this is a huge misunderstanding and Viacom is just trying to identify furries on Youtube so that they can market to them better.

Willeth

Edgie wrote: »

elevature wrote: »

Willeth wrote: »

I wonder how much they'll take into account the intent of the owner. For example, Tenacious D are cool with anyone recording and distributing their stuff as long as they're not selling it.

I've been reading a lot about copyright issues lately, mostly in regards to music, but with regards to video and writing and other things as well. And I've invariably found that the intent of the owner/creator is of very little importance to the big companies who are pulling all this shit. There are lots of bands that are cool with people sharing their stuff, but that won't stop the RIAA or the record labels from suing the fuck out of some grandma if they can. Somehow I don't see Viacom being any different.

This. Tons of bands love people listening to their music. Most of their money comes from shows or merch. The more people that know your music, the higher the chance of you getting people at your shows. And that's just the economical reasoning.

I had a feeling that this was the case. Which makes this extra shitty.

Shadowfire

apotheos wrote: »

Willeth wrote: »

apotheos wrote: »

Now if they are exposing all the records, not just ones tied to known copyright violations, that would be something to get in a snit about.

From my understanding, they are. The intent of this is to prove that the majority of Youtube viewings are for copyrighted material, not user-created material.

The first sentence from http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html:
"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."

Even then, you know, I'm not sure a snit is warranted. I guess if you were clueless and had NO IDEA YouTube was hosting that stuff you could take umbrage, but honestly I'm not sure I believe people are that dumb and know how to use YouTube. Especially not during the height of violations.

To be fair, a lot (vast majority) don't understand copyright laws, and because of the way Youtube bills itself, may assume that everything on Youtube is legal and fair game. I'm not saying "negligence = innocence," but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people don't know.

Taximes

Also, isn't the uploader of the video the one responsible for the copyright infringement (or at least, the one held accountable most of the time)?

Can they actually (read: effectively, practically) sue the end users for the content they watched? Especially in an online environment where the presentation can be so ambiguous. How am I supposed to know that the "/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU" in the URL means "Copyrighted, Do Not Want"?

"Mr. Stark, you owe us $500,000 for your three hundred and twenty-seven illegal viewings of Rick Astley's music videos."
"BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS A LINK TO DUKE NUKEM FOREVER SCREENSHOTS!"

Henroid

Taximes wrote: »

Also, isn't the uploader of the video the one responsible for the copyright infringement (or at least, the one held accountable most of the time)?

Can they actually (read: effectively, practically) sue the end users for the content they watched? Especially in an online environment where the presentation can be so ambiguous. How am I supposed to know that the "/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU" in the URL means "Copyrighted, Do Not Want"?

"Mr. Stark, you owe us $500,000 for your three hundred and twenty-seven illegal viewings of Rick Astley's music videos."
"BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS A LINK TO DUKE NUKEM FOREVER SCREENSHOTS!"

This is the best post in the thread. Not only is it hilarious, but I agree.

If the owner of the copyrighted material wants their shit off youtube, that's understandable. Konami has been able to make YouTube not have any MGS4 material that isn't officially released trailers and the like.

darleysam

I don't see how they can have a hope of suing everyone who looked at copyrighted material on youtube. Would it not just be to prove that such a thing goes on, and to get Google/Youtube slapped with a heavy fine and be told to make sure this kind of thing never happens again?

PatboyX

Can't we all just say it was for educational purposes and get by on Fair Use?
How long before all our sigs and avatars are rendered illegal due to copyright violations?

SkutSkut

I thought it was only copyright infringement if people were making money off it? Where the hell is my money for watching all that stupid crap people have linked me over the years then?

Henroid

PatboyX wrote: »

Can't we all just say it was for educational purposes and get by on Fair Use?
How long before all our sigs and avatars are rendered illegal due to copyright violations?

Oh man. Oh man. I don't know why but this totally reminds me of some shit that happened a few years ago here.

One word: Squidy.

FyreWulff

it's copyright infringement if money is involved or not.

there are exceptions, such as parody, Fair Use, etc..

JihadJesus

Does anyone ever see these kind of headlines and get a mental image of Wile E Coyote opening that tiny little parasol as the fifty ton rock is about to smash down on his head? Keep fighting the good fight, fuckwads. Meanwhile, someone else will come along with a business model for entertainment media that actually, you know, works and everyone in America will laugh their asses off at you once you're living in a burned out Buick under a bridge and ranting at passing pedestrians about how you lived in a 80 room mansion and did copious levels of cocaine off of stripper tits until piracy killed your business. Most of them won't hear you because they'll be listening to free music on their iPods, but whatever.

I know that's not likely to LITERALLY happen, but I can dream.

Spoit

Henroid wrote: »

This is the best post in the thread. Not only is it hilarious, but I agree.

Then report it as being an awesome post, there aren't enough from GnT in there

Henroid

Spoit wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

This is the best post in the thread. Not only is it hilarious, but I agree.

Then report it as being an awesome post, there aren't enough from GnT in there

It's not that awesome.

Feral

apotheos wrote: »

Willeth wrote: »

apotheos wrote: »

Now if they are exposing all the records, not just ones tied to known copyright violations, that would be something to get in a snit about.

From my understanding, they are. The intent of this is to prove that the majority of Youtube viewings are for copyrighted material, not user-created material.

The first sentence from http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html:
"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."

Even then, you know, I'm not sure a snit is warranted. I guess if you were clueless and had NO IDEA YouTube was hosting that stuff you could take umbrage, but honestly I'm not sure I believe people are that dumb and know how to use YouTube. Especially not during the height of violations.

That may be true, but it is also completely irrelevant to the case. Viacom's demands could easily be satisfied with traffic metrics. It really doesn't matter whether the people complaining did anything wrong or not (and, honestly, it is entirely conceivable that in a non-negligible number of cases some of those people have watched copyrighted videos without having any idea that said videos were copyrighted) because there's no reason for Viacom to get the information that they're asking for.

darleysam

Henroid wrote: »

Spoit wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

This is the best post in the thread. Not only is it hilarious, but I agree.

Then report it as being an awesome post, there aren't enough from GnT in there

It's not that awesome.

Yeah, really don't report that, it's good, but it's not Awesome Posts-worthy.

Cheezy

Henroid wrote: »

PatboyX wrote: »

Can't we all just say it was for educational purposes and get by on Fair Use?
How long before all our sigs and avatars are rendered illegal due to copyright violations?

Oh man. Oh man. I don't know why but this totally reminds me of some shit that happened a few years ago here.

One word: Squidy.

GIVE ME BACK MY SPRITES

Couscous

darleysam wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Spoit wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

This is the best post in the thread. Not only is it hilarious, but I agree.

Then report it as being an awesome post, there aren't enough from GnT in there

It's not that awesome.

Yeah, really don't report that, it's good, but it's not Awesome Posts-worthy.

They'll just bitch at us for reporting it.

Henroid

Cheezy wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

PatboyX wrote: »

Can't we all just say it was for educational purposes and get by on Fair Use?
How long before all our sigs and avatars are rendered illegal due to copyright violations?

Oh man. Oh man. I don't know why but this totally reminds me of some shit that happened a few years ago here.

One word: Squidy.

GIVE ME BACK MY SPRITES

Hooray, someone remembered.

... now let's drink to forget.

Taximes

titmouse wrote: »

darleysam wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Spoit wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

This is the best post in the thread. Not only is it hilarious, but I agree.

Then report it as being an awesome post, there aren't enough from GnT in there

It's not that awesome.

Yeah, really don't report that, it's good, but it's not Awesome Posts-worthy.

They'll just bitch at us for reporting it.

Woo, I'm mediocre.

Torgo

Wait, so Viacom only is trying to prove that copyrighted stuff gets more hits on Youtube than original content, thus it is a "more pirate than good" sort of thing? Then Google ....what pays punitive damages even though they only host user generated stuff and try to remove copyrighted material?

I've never submitted a copyrighted video to Youtube, but I watch anything I want. It's not on my shoulders to see if someone has the rights to post what they did on Youtube. I can't see them suing 1 BILLION people for watching something random on Youtube.