YouTube Must Give All User Histories To Viacom
Jonnie Tyler
"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. 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."
Jens Tingleff
Hash: SHA1
Jonnie Tyler wrote:
Data privacy? Shmata privacy!
(insert rant about how data protection is srs bsns and how Europe is trying
to do the right thing and how the US is doing the wrong thing.)
Oh well, it's not like the criminal organisation known as the "church"
<spit> of $cientology would have anyone working as a data base wonk in the
companies contracting for Viacom's legal team. Phew!
Best Regards
Jens
- --
Key ID 0x09723C12, jens...@tingleff.org
Analogue filtering / 5GHz RLAN / Mandriva Linux / odds and ends
http://www.tingleff.org/jensting/ +44 1223 829 985
"Der Fuhrer never said 'BABY'!" 'The Producers'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIbbf9imJs3AlyPBIRApChAKC8zHkZ1oUb8nV4lSxTgFv0RTA8zgCghasA
q7HzhF6lTg8LQfFh9Xgjg8k=
=rm1f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Roger Larsson
> Fromhttp://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/03/121221&from=rss
Users net controled by criminals net is controled by criminals and not
the users.
If the justice is the equal weight, if the eternal is the balance the
justice seems to have made a deadly judgement.
"Rev" Norle Enturbulata, DTS, OD
provider...!
There ARE as we've found other places to post video material like vimeo.
Better quality too.
"Jens Tingleff" <jens_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g4kd6...@news1.newsguy.com...
Jonnie Tyler
> news:g4kd6...@news1.newsguy.com...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>>
>>> From http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/03/121221&from=rss
>>>
>>> "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. 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."
On second thought, I wonder why does Viacom need this information for people
who watched the videos. As I understand it, their beef is with those who
posted he video, and with Google for allowing it. That I know, watching a
copyrighted video is not a copyright infringement. It seems to me that the
demand is unreasonable and I cannot fathom why the judge is enforcing it.
Roger Larsson
> > "Jens Tingleff" <jens_tingl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:g4kd6...@news1.newsguy.com...
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
>
> >> Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>
>
> >>> "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. 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."
>
> On second thought, I wonder why does Viacom need this information for people
> who watched the videos. As I understand it, their beef is with those who
> posted he video, and with Google for allowing it. That I know, watching a
> copyrighted video is not a copyright infringement. It seems to me that the
>
> - Visa citerad text -
The ones doing the worlds stuff don't have to copyright their stuff
something the ones doing own stuff have to do.
Alexia Death
> Fromhttp://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/03/121221&from=rss
Viacom got fucked over once already for not allowing for fair use...
in this case, wanna know why I dont see a reason for an individual to
worry? TOO MUCH DATA. its whooping 12 Terabytes. Just to give some
scope, your 200GB porn collection would fit in it 61,44 times. And
that is a database dump, not a video. If it takes serious work to
generate and copy that dump, try processing it. Good luck, Viacom, its
not going to be cheap. And you'll need to prove that your statistical
analysis is valid too. It's ever so easy to botch a query and flush
the credibility of your findings down the drain. Also, correct me if
I'm wrong, but isn't it illegal for viacom to use this information for
any other purpose than what it was granted - that is proving that
Youtube leeched of their content to get off the ground?
realpch
Oh, they probably want to decide just how mad they are at the people who
put the videos up.
Peach
--
Extra! Extra! Read All About It!
Save some dough, save some grief:
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.scientology-lies.com
Nec_V20
Alexia,
here's something from the EFF:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-expose-viewing-habits-youtube-us
The other problem is of course, that the IP address is pretty
meaningless because ISPs use NATs so it is very possible that hundreds
of users using the same IP address would be on the Internet at the
same time (they would be differentiated by the port address the NAT
assigns to IP address.
So even with the IP address, without the port number any search might
positively id the ISP, but not the individual user.
Also of course usually IP addresses only have validity to an
individual until the lease is released (by the user disconnecting from
the Internet. So the timeframe of the IP and the port number would
have to be crunched as a subset of the data.
So unless you have registered with a username to YouTube, the IP
address data is essentially meaningless.
Jonnie Tyler
news:a6c62c9f-2ded-49e4...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Alexia,
========
Not to speak of all those who access youtube from Internet Cafes and
wireless spots. Maybe not that many in advanced countries where most people
have internet at home but millions in other countries where most do not.
What Viacom would do with terabytes of useless data to irrelevant
information is beyond me.
Jonnie Tyler
news:I3Abk.242985$fB7....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
> What Viacom would do with terabytes of useless data to irrelevant
> information is beyond me.
Come to think of it I think what Viacom is trying to do is to put forth a
message that it is not safe to post or even watch copyrighted material on
Youtube, or any material for that matter. They want a massive defection from
Youtube.
Eldon
> > "Jens Tingleff" <jens_tingl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:g4kd6...@news1.newsguy.com...
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
>
> >> Jonnie Tyler wrote:
>
>
> >>> "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. 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."
>
> On second thought, I wonder why does Viacom need this information for people
> who watched the videos.
I think they're trying to establish a "pattern" to show how much
exposure their precious property got on YouTube vis a vis user-created
amateur stuff. Hell, if you sue someone for a billion bucks, you'd
better be able to argue that you're losing money.
> As I understand it, their beef is with those who
> posted he video, and with Google for allowing it.
I don't think they care about the umpteen hundreds of thousands of
people who uploaded clips. Those people don't have deep pockets;
Google does.
Ultimately, they are probably just blustering and trying to get some
cut of the ad revenues. They can't stop people from putting their
stuff on the Internet anyway, and they know it.
Copyright as we once knew it doesn't work in the digital age.