Judge orders Google to disclose details of YouTube users viewing habits

It's such a bullshit case.
So many users are on YouTube uploading content, that there's no possible way for them to analyze every single file before it's posted. That is, unless, you want YouTube to hire a content analyzer who has to watch every single submission from beginning to end in order to make sure no "illegal content" has been posted. That's simply not going to happen.

Also, the execs at Viacom needs to get over themselves. If they track the most watched videos on YouTube, they'll find that the majority of them are self made films that have nothing to do with their company. Alanis Morissete's parody of "My Humps". Chris Crocker's "Leave Britney Alone". Not A Rapper's "Read-A-Book" video. Just to name three off the top of my head. None of these belong to Viacom. If people don't care to watch MTV & VH-1 live on TV, what makes them think people want to watch them online via YouTube in even crappier quality?

*sigh* I'm safe!!!

Me too~!

This is really much ado about nothing... high courts have largely upheld the notion that A television broadcaster can not get miffy about someone downloading a free clip of a TV show they can watch for free, anyway...

And it has been pretty well established via precedent that a site like youtube can not be held responsible for theft of copyrighted material anymore than a bookstore could be held responsible for some of the books they sell containing plagiarized materials...

But Viacom makes a valid point that in the bookstore scenario, they would have a right to discover from the bookstore owner who they bought the book from....


Viacom wants the IP info so they can determine if, say, 80% of illegal clip uploads are coming from 15 or 20 individuals....

IF they can identify a handful of major abusers, they can proceed with litigation against them as examples...

If however, it turns out that the clips are being uploaded by tens of thousands or millions of individuals then they have no real solution that they can afford.


But they do have to show that they have been monetarily harmed.
For example... you can go to the daily show website and watch all the episodes for free...
Or you can watch them on TV for free...

THey will be hard pressed to prove any material damage from folks copying the videos and posting them...

Their only argument is that they get paid by advertisers on their website on a per hit and per view basis... so their monetary damage from free youtubers is the advertising dollars they lose by those viewers not going to their website.


The accused can effectively argue that the CONTENT is offered for free...and that their re-releasing the content actually benefits Viacom in the form of advertising for their shows... increasing viewer-ship and ratings, which increases revenue.


These last 12 years of republican rule have resulted in a highly capitalized judiciary... where the rights of corporate ownership seem to supersede the constitutional rights of the citizenry.


I say the solution is simple.... boycott the TV shows and movies of any company perpetrating this legal attempts at doing an end run around copyright law.

... and considering we're talking about a corporation that owns networks who show quality programs such as "Hogan Knows Best", "Flavor Of Love" and "The Real World", I don't think that'll be too hard to do.

A better analogy is that you can go to a book store and read a book for free if you want.

It is true what Google is doing. Do a search and do some reading. I was shocked.

no... its not better because it is not an analogy about getting stuff for free... its an analogy of the responsibilities of a distributor to the owner of copyrighted material, when it turns out the vendor is distributing material that is infringing on the rights of the owner.


It has already been found that a website allowing folks to post videos is NOT responsible for the fact that some people will post copyrighted materials without authority of the owner.

It is not the distributor's job to vet all materials for copyright infringement...

As in a bookstore... if it turns out some best seller has pictures or prose in it that was appropriated from the copyright holder... the Bookstore can not be held financially liable as that would require the bookstore owner to have perfect prior knowledge of all sources of all materials...


However... the bookstore DOES have a responsibility to assist the holder of copyright in enforcing their rights by revealing the sources of the books on their shelves.


Similarly, Youtube and google, while not criminally responsible for copyright infringement... should have similar responsibility in enforcing copyright law by providing the copyright holder with the sources of the infringing materials.

Or so argue the lawyers of VIACOM.

Frankly... they have a valid point. The only difference between the bookstore scenario and the internet scenario is that books cost a lot of money to produce and so infringers are usually corporate publishers...

Whereas in the internet scenario the publishers are generally individuals.

The fight is over privacy rights versus copyright law.


Does your right to privacy sheild you from discovery of your illegal infringement of copyrights?


THis is the delicate ground on which the entire internet treads... all these issues, so easy to deconstruct in a physical world, become so much more difficult to nail down in a world of pure information without borders.

It's outrageous.

Akin to listening into our phone calls and intercepting/reading and logging the contents of our snail-mail.

Or a conversation we may have in a bar, restaurant or even our own homes and workplaces.

Has anyone ever noticed how difficult it is made to obtain info and they use the "Data Protection Act" but if someone wants info on me/you it is made available under the "Freedom of Information Act".

If ever there were two opposing peices of legislation designed to:

Allow "them" to.......

But:

Block "us" from.......