Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom

[Jack]

From Wired:

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. Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement. Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as "speculative" and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives. The judge also turned Google's own defense of its data retention policies -- that IP addresses of computers aren't personally revealing in and of themselves, against it to justify the log dump. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has already reacted, calling the order a violation of the Video Privacy Protection act that "threatens to expose deeply private information." The order also requires Google to turn over copies of all videos that it has taken down for any reason.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation's opinion:

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 VPPA passed after a newspaper disclosed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental records. As Congress recognized, your selection of videos to watch is deeply personal and deserves the strongest protection. The Logging database contains: for each instance a video is watched, the unique “login ID” of the user who watched it, the time when the user started to watch the video, the internet protocol address other devices connected to the internet use to identify the user’s computer (“IP address”), and the identifier for the video. Google correctly argued that “the data should not be disclosed because of the users’ privacy concerns,” citing the VPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2710. However, the Court dismissed this argument with no analysis, stating “defendants cite no authority barring them from disclosing such information in civil discovery proceedings, and their privacy concerns are speculative.” In a footnote, the Court references the VPPA, noting that the federal law “prohibits video tape service providers from disclosing information on the specific video materials subscribers request or obtain.” It is possible that the reference to "video tapes" in the VPPA was confusing. However, the Act is not limited to the technology available at the time of its enactment. To the contrary, the act refers to “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” A YouTube video may not be a videotape, but certainly qualifies as audio visual material. Thus, YouTube is a “video tape service provider” under the act, because it is “engaged in the business [of] delivery of … audio visual materials.” The VPPA protects “personally identifiable information,” which is defined to include “information which identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services.” This is exactly what is in the Logging database. Accordingly, pursuant to this federal law, the Court may not order the production of “personally identifiable information”: in a civil proceeding [except] upon a showing of compelling need for the information that cannot be accommodated by any other means, if— (i) the consumer is given reasonable notice, by the person seeking the disclosure, of the court proceeding relevant to the issuance of the court order; and (ii) the consumer is afforded the opportunity to appear and contest the claim of the person seeking the disclosure. Today’s court order made no finding that Viacom could not be accommodated by any other means, nor were the YouTube users provided with notice and an opportunity to contest the claim. Instead, the Court focused on some statements made by Google on its blog: We . . . are strong supporters of the idea that data protection laws should apply to any data that could identify you. The reality is though that in most cases, an IP address without additional information cannot. The Court also stated that Google did “not refute that the ‘login ID is an anonymous pseudonym that users create for themselves when they sign up with YouTube’ which without more ‘cannot identify specific individuals.’” As an initial matter, this is factually insufficient. If any single one of the YouTube users in the Logging database picked a Login ID that does identify that user (i.e. if my YouTube login was kurtopsahl), then the Logging database' information about viewing habits is protected by the VPPA, even if others pick anonymous pseudonyms. Furthermore, even Google’s IP address statement only asserts that “in most cases” the IP address is not identifiable, certainly not in all cases. Putting aside whether a Google Public Policy blog's statement on an unrelated topic can waive the privacy rights of YouTube users, the statement means that at least some YouTube users are identifiable, and must be protected by the VPPA. In any event, the court ordered production of not just IP addresses, but also all the associated information in the Logging database. Whatever might be said about 'an IP address without additional information,' the the AOL search history leak fiasco shows that the material viewed by a user alone can be sufficient to identify the user, even with neither a login nor an IP address.

So thanks to a judge with little understanding of the internet and an overly broad ruling, your YouTube viewing habits may soon be included in a case before the court.

[HelioPrime]

So they can prove copyrighted material is being illegally viewed? What's so wrong with that. Or do you disagree and feel internet posted material is above copyright laws and should be viewable by everyone in privacy?

Does the IP address of your PC tell much and what are they really going to do with it? If you think viacom has some hidden purpose to use it for your crazy. This only seems to be about getting back at google for allowing the posting of material owned by viacom.

[Jack]

Does the IP address of your PC tell much and what are they really going to do with it?

Add that to your login information and they are closer to finding out that perhaps once, without evil intention, you watched a video that was posted in violation of Viacom's rights. What's to stop Viacom from coming after you with a violation of copyright suit? It's not just the RIAA that wants to sue anyone they can.

[HelioPrime]

So then you have a right to post and view copyrighted material illegally because its on the net. And the laws duty is to protect you from any liability from your crime and the crimes of google?

[Jack]

What about people who viewed videos and had no idea the content was copyrighted? What about those who followed a link from, oh say a forum, to a YouTube video that was protected? Further, what if the EFF is correct in its assessment that this decision could be in violation of federal law?

The ramifications are greater than you suggest.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Jack What about people who viewed videos and had no idea the content was copyrighted? What about those who followed a link from, oh say a forum, to a YouTube video that was protected?

I don't know, but I'm sure they're working on filter capability for copyright protected material, be it acted, directed, played or written by someone.

Grandpa h.

[Walrus]

I would have thought that they would be more interested in those who upload copyright material. To go through all those who download would be a colossal task, as the figures would be in the millions.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Jack Add that to your login information and they are closer to finding out that perhaps once, without evil intention, you watched a video that was posted in violation of Viacom's rights. What's to stop Viacom from coming after you with a violation of copyright suit? It's not just the RIAA that wants to sue anyone they can.

I do believe they can hunt you down with just an IP address. The cops catch kiddie porn distributors this way all the time.

However, I doubt Viacom is going to start tracking down and imprisoning people who watched South Park or something on Youtube. They have bigger fish to fry, although they might try to make an example of a few...which is scary.

[Technosoul]

What if we use a news story in our news debate forum, most of the news programs have their stories copyrighted.

If you give credit for the source then it that a form of unlawful use?

The odd thing is I use some of the music clips presented on You Tube but I never did sign up to use that webpage, apparently you only need to submit a e-mail address and so forth if you want to take part by adding something to the files, or to make a comment.

Anyone can watch, copy and paste without anyone requesting their names or e-mail addresses, but I suppose you can still be traced somehow.

Can Rev Wright sue everyone for using his image and words on CNN without his permission? Which they got off of you tube?

This is all totally nuts, people are just having some fun and no one intends to rob anyone except for those lawyers who are using that judge to pursue collecting money from Google.

Soon Copyrights will distroy all freedom to have fun. If someone next door can hear your CD player for free then you have taken part in them stealing someone's copyright. How do you copyright freedom, well, I guess that judge has firgured it all out (for us).

I got one word "hogwash" as my comment.

[Technosoul]

the monopoly is Viacom

Viacom

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Thanatos ...peo ple who watched South Park or something on Youtube.

Actually, you can watch all the episodes of South Park for free. The ruling is hogwash, as technosoul says.

What Viacom doesn't seem to understand, is The Grateful Dead factor. I hate that band, but they didn’t make any money selling records, compared to the way they made money doing everything else. If you met someone at a dead concert, they had some things in common with you. The secret handshake, the clothes, whatever. That was important and you were willing to pay concert ticket prices to be with those people. After Jerry died, obviously there was thousands of hours to listen to, but that’s not what the people missed. The people missed the place they could go to meet the people like them. The Grateful Dead factor is why YouTube, Facebook, Napster, etc... are what draw in people. People listen to people, not faceless corporations suing their viewers/listeners.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Compugasm Actually, you can watch all the episodes of South Park for free. The ruling is hogwash, as technosoul says.

Awesome. A new way to kill a Thursday morning has been discovered.

What Viacom doesn't seem to understand, is The Grateful Dead factor. I hate that band, but they didn’t make any money selling records, compared to the way they made money doing everything else. If you met someone at a dead concert, they had some things in common with you. The secret handshake, the clothes, whatever. That was important and you were willing to pay concert ticket prices to be with those people. After Jerry died, obviously there was thousands of hours to listen to, but that’s not what the people missed. The people missed the place they could go to meet the people like them. The Grateful Dead factor is why YouTube, Facebook, Napster, etc... are what draw in people. People listen to people, not faceless corporations suing their viewers/listeners.

Interesting. However, the low-end entertainment industry will still suffer. Not every band can expect to pack stadiums like the Grateful Dead did.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Thanatos However, the low-end entertainment industry will still suffer. Not every band can expect to pack stadiums like the Grateful Dead did.

I disagree that the low-end will suffer. Word of mouth, people giving away "copywritten" material with no pricing schemes, or copy protection, to other people is how the Dead got in to the stadiums. I think it took them 25 years to do it. But the internet is the same concept as the bootleg copy, and litterally made thousands of people successful, that might not have been otherwise.

Thirty years ago, no band could afford a music studio to record an album, without a Viacom or Warner Brothers behind them. It used to take a long time. Someone would go to the studio, and we’d hear from them a year later. Forget about stadiums, it was extremely difficult to be heard by more than a few hundred people at a time. Advertising, promotion, shelf space, that used to be what consumers paid cash money for.

The revolutionary 'thing' that will change the music/TV industry (and the internet), is this odd video I found from Weezer, but I didn't mention why it was revolutionary. Essentially, Weezer accepted fan input into writing a new song, and it was mixed using a standard Dell computer with music software. So everyone has the ability to make a record now!

Think of your favorite band, and how much money you've spent on their CD's and concert tickets. Has your favorite band ever communicated with you directly like Weezer? The corporations have to figure out how to innovate in the way you interact with people. There is quite a difference between reaching the widest audience, and creating a dedicated following. That is why this Weezer video is revolutionary.

The interesting thing about most products and services is that we won't buy them until we know what they are and what they do. And often the best and only way to do that is to use them. For some products (like music) using them once and owning them are very close to the same thing. Hence, free. You can view that as a problem or you can see it as an opportunity.

[glitch]

I would first like to point out that you tube has 50,000 videos being added per day in May 2006, and this increased to 65,000 in July. So it is virtually freaking impossible for them to check EVERY single video for copyrighted content.

[Compugasm]

I'm pretty confident Viacom can automate the process. There is no need to view each video, when you could search keywords.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Compugasm I'm pretty confident Viacom can automate the process. There is no need to view each video, when you could search keywords.

Uhm, what stops me from uploading a video that Viacom claims to own without using a keyword they'd recognize?

TC

[Thanatos]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Uhm, what stops me from uploading a video that Viacom claims to own without using a keyword they'd recognize? TC

The fact that nobody else will be able to find it either. The goons who manage the entertainment industry's war on the internet are pretty serious people and generally regarded as smarter than the average goon. They've disassembled are actively trying to jam a lot of the p2p networks and took out a big chunk of Usenet. War is the right word.

Lawyers For ‘Imposter’ P2P Software Threaten Open-Source Team | TorrentFreak

MediaSentry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16122

They can't really win because there will always be another way to route things, but they can make piracy difficult enough that a lot of people will go to the store and buy it.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Thanatos They can't really win because there will always be another way to route things, but they can make piracy difficult enough that a lot of people will go to the store and buy it.

Remember being in high school, gathering up your allowance money, bumming a ride to the mall, and spending money on an album or the movie theater? I don't belive it would be Viacoms strategy to force people back to the retail store. I assume the store you meant, was iTunes or some like that. Because digital widgets cost almost nothing to make and distribute that way.

The irony is that the people who most want privacy, should be the least likely to be on the internet. People just aren't alarmed by this fact, because they haven't been surprised by the consequences yet.

Credit card companies now a staggering amount about you. But they never call you on it. If Visa called up one day and said, "we've been looking over your records and you've bought Rogain. We'd like to offer you a free coupon for Viagra or..." you'd freak out, and for good reason.

This Viacom lawsuit is a wake up call into the surprise facts that you are traceable down to an IP address. So far, government and big companies have gotten away with taking virtually all our privacy away by not surprising most of us, at least not in a vivid way. Libertarians are worried (probably with cause) that once the surprises start happening, it'll be too late. Because as in this lawsuit, you're immediately guilty by participation.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Compugasm Remember being in high school, gathering up your allowance money, bumming a ride to the mall, and spending money on an album or the movie theater? I don't belive it would be Viacoms strategy to force people back to the retail store.

Companies rely on domestic and overseas admissions to pay
production costs. I doubt movie theaters would end anyway.
As for retail stores, I'm not so sure.

Grandpa h.

[Century 25]

I think Viacom should look for bin Laden