Google Handing Over User Logs to Viacom of Videos Watched

[dw426]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...orders-yo.html. A judge ordered Google to hand over logs of all users who have watched videos on YouTube...all videos, and how often. Ouch.

[SteveTX]

The internet never forgets!

[dw426]

I probably shouldn't have watched that Alice in Chains video, eh?

[Bubba]

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.

I suppose giving any info is questionable but after reading the judge's ruling (.pdf ) ....it's questionable to me that the wording instructs that "users' names and IP addresses" be given. Instead it appears to me all they are asking for is how many times it was viewed

I probably shouldn't have watched that Alice in Chains video, eh?

I swear I didn't watch Carrie Underwood - Before He Cheats 100 times

[dw426]

Looking at the actual ruling you have a point, I also do not see a specific order for user names and IPs, but only the amount of times viewed. That makes the article a bit confusing then, and confusion when dealing with issues like this is the last thing needed. I shall refrain from poking at you for listening to Carrie Underwood

[ronjor]

Viacom, Google Agree on Privacy for YouTube Users

An agreement between Viacom and Google will protect user identities as Google complies with a court order to give Viacom data on YouTube viewing. Google will withhold user names and other information that could identify individual users. Viacom is seeking $1 billion for copyright infringement.

Story

[EASTER]

Well, i sure hope they read my logs of videos and somehow encourage Google to inspire more contributors to add more seasons of Star Trek!!! I been drooling for more classic episodes but since they enforce a 10 minute video limit on them, i have to piece them together by episodes although some are not entirely complete, and i've reached a point of having to dig back from months to years to gather them into some coherent chain enough. I consider myself fortunate that quite a few of them are stretched but encompass nearly an entire episode each EXCEPT FOR THOSE DARN ONE MINUTE TRAILERS..

Load those vids into my player at night and i'm back in the 1960's and drop off to sleep like a baby, also waking up to them is pretty cool too. Just hope i don't get burned out on them too soon. Nothing like Classic TV, and yes indeed, i'm a full fledged nostalgia science fiction enthusiast.

EASTER

[dw426]

Originally Posted by EASTER

Well, i sure hope they read my logs of videos and somehow encourage Google to inspire more contributors to add more seasons of Star Trek!!! I been drooling for more classic episodes but since they enforce a 10 minute video limit on them, i have to piece them together by episodes although some are not entirely complete, and i've reached a point of having to dig back from months to years to gather them into some coherent chain enough. I consider myself fortunate that quite a few of them are stretched but encompass nearly an entire episode each EXCEPT FOR THOSE DARN ONE MINUTE TRAILERS..

Load those vids into my player at night and i'm back in the 1960's and drop off to sleep like a baby, also waking up to them is pretty cool too. Just hope i don't get burned out on them too soon. Nothing like Classic TV, and yes indeed, i'm a full fledged nostalgia science fiction enthusiast.

EASTER

At least you're into the REAL Star Trek (standing ovation for Easter). Please Viacom, just leave Bob Newhart and Bon Jovi videos alone (err, can you also leave Jimi Hendrix up too please?) and nobody will get hurt...I promise *smiles innocently*

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
I don't see why anyone should be bothered by this.
It's not up to you to worry what's copyrighted or not when you watch something on such a popular public site like youtube.com
Mrk

[dw426]

Originally Posted by Mrkvonic

Hello,
I don't see why anyone should be bothered by this.
It's not up to you to worry what's copyrighted or not when you watch something on such a popular public site like youtube.com
Mrk

Lol, the hell it's not. Look, I don't mean to target you personally, but this kind of attitude has to stop. The world is changing and very few are actually going to give a big, steaming pile of crap until it's too late to do anything about it (and that day is rapidly approaching). For those that don't understand what's going on here, this judgement can be a stepping stone to legal troubles just for viewing something someone else posted. This very well could turn into the birth of a new copyright infringement movement.

The "burden of proof" concept we all have relied on for so many years to protect us from wrongful punishment/frivolous lawsuits is rapidly diminishing, so we need to start waking up now.

[The Hammer]

Originally Posted by dw426

Lol, the hell it's not. Look, I don't mean to target you personally, but this kind of attitude has to stop. The world is changing and very few are actually going to give a big, steaming pile of crap until it's too late to do anything about it (and that day is rapidly approaching). For those that don't understand what's going on here, this judgement can be a stepping stone to legal troubles just for viewing something someone else posted. This very well could turn into the birth of a new copyright infringement movement.

The "burden of proof" concept we all have relied on for so many years to protect us from wrongful punishment/frivolous lawsuits is rapidly diminishing, so we need to start waking up now.

Sorry about the "attitude" but Mrkvonic is right. I don't see myself getting rousted out of bed in the middle of the night by the copyright cops. But if I do I'll post my video on Youtube.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by The Hammer

Sorry about the "attitude" but Mrkvonic is right. I don't see myself getting rousted out of bed in the middle of the night by the copyright cops. But if I do I'll post my video on Youtube.

Lol, you won't be rousted out of anything, you'll first see one of those "settlement" notices in your mail or handed to you by your ISP. Some don't seem to get the point, it's not about the "men in black" whisking you off blindfolded to some soundproof room God knows where and interrogated for hours, it's about rights, freedom, and the ability to take a dump in a public restroom without someone knowing about being slowly degraded with each law passed. The more laws that pass without being challenged ferociously, the more that will pass.

[The Hammer]

The focus of the Viacom lawsuit are the posters and perhaps the hosters of the content not the watchers, so your logic is flawed.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by The Hammer

The focus of the Viacom lawsuit are the posters and perhaps the hosters of the content not the watchers, so your logic is flawed.

Ok, one more time. It opens the door to more privacy losses and litigation opportunities. Whether or not you downloaded the videos, you still accessed them, watching=access. What makes you think that these organizations won't milk the court system for every possible drop in order to stop the VIEWING and downloading of copyrighted material? The MPAA and RIAA are already trying to woo judges into deeming just having an open folder during P2P proof of infringement, where do you think they are going to stop?

When are people going to finally get the picture that big corporations will do whatever they deem necessary to get and protect their money? Hell, they make most of the decisions in the U.S.

[EASTER]

All i have to add to those type of suspicions, conjectures, and apprehensions is this. If they don't want any of their tapes playing openly on YOUTUBE, it's NOT the user's fault. It's a "PUBLIC" viewing platform and if they fear they may lose revenue, then all they have to do is go to the source host and NOT the viewer because it's not confidential, not even a sign-up is needed to view YOUTUBE vids, so whats the fuss all about.

And besides, i hardly doubt those contributors are profitting at all but sharing in bringing more attention to old TV Series, copyright or not, and untill they lobby for infringement against the likes of Google in YouTube, which i hardly doubt they would even bother, then theres not much to crow about IMO.

In fact, it's because of a lot of these type Sci-Fi clips which is inspired me to go after the full DVD's because contrary to popular belief, even though they are quite good, FLV's are a far cry from authentic digital reproduction and crispy clear surround sound via enhanced DVD's.

Just my two pennys worth, EASTER.

[The Hammer]

Originally Posted by Mrkvonic

Hello,
I don't see why anyone should be bothered by this.
It's not up to you to worry what's copyrighted or not when you watch something on such a popular public site like youtube.com
Mrk

Sorry dw426 but your going to have to draw me a picture. I can't see where you've blown any holes in the arguement presented in this statement by Mrkvonic.

[dw426]

Originally Posted by EASTER

All i have to add to those type of suspicions, conjectures, and apprehensions is this. If they don't want any of their tapes playing openly on YOUTUBE, it's NOT the user's fault. It's a "PUBLIC" viewing platform and if they fear they may lose revenue, then all they have to do is go to the source host and NOT the viewer because it's not confidential, not even a sign-up is needed to view YOUTUBE vids, so whats the fuss all about.

And besides, i hardly doubt those contributors are profitting at all but sharing in bringing more attention to old TV Series, copyright or not, and untill they lobby for infringement against the likes of Google in YouTube, which i hardly doubt they would even bother, then theres not much to crow about IMO.

In fact, it's because of a lot of these type Sci-Fi clips which is inspired me to go after the full DVD's because contrary to popular belief, even though they are quite good, FLV's are a far cry from authentic digital reproduction and crispy clear surround sound via enhanced DVD's.

Just my two pennys worth, EASTER.

Hi Easter, I actually agree with you. It is NOT the user's fault that these are posted, however, users are increasingly being vilified for "participation" in the minds of these companies. Users ask for the content, users post it, so in the minds of big business, we're all guilty, and, courts are increasingly joining that line of thought.

Also, one disagreement, Google is not impenetrable, and the MPAA/RIAA can and eventually will go after them. The little judgements lead to the big judgements.

[EASTER]

It's IMO a fine line and the end decision rests with the copyright material owners, so it's up to them to take action on the hosts NOT viewers.

Personally i believe theres something else much more on an agenda here going on behind the scenes of this, rather then just some mini-movie clips, maybe as another way to better track certain viewers of particular content in order to combile a profile of what's viewed the most and often or just a way of gathering another database for advertising purposes, who knows for sure right now untill an official announcement surfaces, if it ever does.

EASTER

[dw426]

Originally Posted by EASTER

It's IMO a fine line and the end decision rests with the copyright material owners, so it's up to them to take action on the hosts NOT viewers.

Personally i believe theres something else much more on an agenda here going on behind the scenes of this, rather then just some mini-movie clips, maybe as another way to better track certain viewers of particular content in order to combile a profile of what's viewed the most and often or just a way of gathering another database for advertising purposes, who knows for sure right now untill an official announcement surfaces, if it ever does.

EASTER

I agree again. However, I believe the database gathering is a secondary effect to the prime reason for Viacom doing this.