Google to hand over files to viacom!

Heineken Helen

No big deal I spose :rolleyes:

http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/110442

In a legal dispute with Viacom over copyright infringement on YouTube, a New York district court has ordered Google to hand over all saved log files to the media company. The ruling (PDF), handed down on Tuesday, relates to the video portal's entire log database. This contains IP addresses of computers from which users have watched videos, the start time of film clips, their identification numbers and in some cases users' login names. This data, which frequently allows easy identification of the user, is recorded when watching a video on either YouTube or on another site containing an embedded YouTube video.


The US civil rights organisation Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has described the ruling as a serious "set-back to privacy rights" and a breach of one clause of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA). There is also a question mark over how far the court ruling breaches data protection legislation in regions like the EU, which has specific privacy provisions for personal information such as IP addresses.

Google argued that the twelve terabyte database could not be released because of concerns over user privacy. Judge Louis Stanton, however, assessed the data protection concerns as "speculative". According to the judge, YouTube's parent company failed to give genuine grounds to prevent disclosure of the extensive collection of information in civil proceedings. In a footnote, Stanton notes that the VPPA relates to the sale of physical video cassettes only.

Google's own attitude to the legal status of IP addresses has not aided its predicament – the US company has long expressed the opinion that "in most cases" IP addresses cannot be regarded as personal data without additional information. Google hopes thereby to avoid having to shorten the period for which it stores search query data – including IP addresses – from the 18 months it currently practises, a fact not overlooked by the judge. He also pointed out that the search engine company itself had declared that the login name for YouTube is an "anonymous pseudonym", which users could think up for themselves. The idea that web users might in some cases use their actual names appears not to have occurred to Google.

Media company Viacom, which is responsible for channels such as MTV and VH1, launched its action against Google and its YouTube subsidiary in New York in March 2007. The company is accusing the internet business of "massive copyright infringement" and is demanding compensation of $1 billion. (Stefan Krempl) / (anw/c't)

Kann

yeah that sucks.
There was a time when google apps actually seemed like the good guys in the battle microsoft vs everybody else. Now they just make me want to close my google accounts.

Rhinocerous Surprise

Two companies shooting themselves in the foot... if people bothered to care.

dunkman

so it would seem google can know what i've watched... yet no uproar about that... and now that Viacom can see what i've watched it looks like a privacy issue, uproar, etc.

also... they dont know any personal details... IP address are not user specific on a constant level... they change according to the ISP.

so Viacom know i look up music videos... but Google already knew that... and yet they dont even know it was me... just an IIP address...

p.s. this only affects registered users i believe... so if you're not a 'member' of youtube i believe this doesnt affect you... thats my understanding of it at least.

John Briggs 2008

WEll, I think looking up a video is not something that can be prosecuted since it's in the public domain and Google allowed this. It falls to the uploader in my view.

Heineken Helen

dunkman wrote:

so it would seem google can know what i've watched... yet no uproar about that... and now that Viacom can see what i've watched it looks like a privacy issue, uproar, etc.

also... they dont know any personal details... IP address are not user specific on a constant level... they change according to the ISP.

so Viacom know i look up music videos... but Google already knew that... and yet they dont even know it was me... just an IIP address...

p.s. this only affects registered users i believe... so if you're not a 'member' of youtube i believe this doesnt affect you... thats my understanding of it at least.

so what the hell do they need it for? Why do they want the IP addresses of everyone who's watched everything?

Heineken Helen

John Briggs 2008 wrote:

WEll, I think looking up a video is not something that can be prosecuted since it's in the public domain and Google allowed this. It falls to the uploader in my view.

it just makes no sense that a judge would approve this. I'm sure when you sign up there's some kinda privacy agreement or something? It's ridiculous.

Heineken Helen

Kann wrote:

yeah that sucks.
There was a time when google apps actually seemed like the good guys in the battle microsoft vs everybody else. Now they just make me want to close my google accounts.

but hey, if you're not doing anything wrong, why worry?

Companies and governments good... conspiracy theorists bad... very bad!

dunkman

Heineken Helen wrote:

so what the hell do they need it for? Why do they want the IP addresses of everyone who's watched everything?

it also tells them who uploaded stuff.. and its those people who have broken the copyright, so i think its more likely they will be after those guys...

but in all honesty it sounds like a power thing... viacom flexing muscles and making google jump hoops.

rest assured that your identity is at as much risk as it is by posting on this very forum... so you post here no problem??? your ip is trackable... tenclub know who you are by your registration details... etc etc etc.. your more likely to be affected by your membership registration here than you having seen 4 Hanson videos on youtube

dunkman

Does that mean Viacom knows what I have watched online?

If Viacom wanted to, the firm would be able to see which particular YouTube user has watched which particular clips.

But that is not necessarily the same thing as knowing who you are and what you have watched.

Privacy advocates are concerned that a combination of a users' YouTube login ID, a computer IP address and a user's viewing habits might be enough to personally identify individuals.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that many people pick login IDs that relate directly to them, including their name.

A computer's IP address is also not enough in every case to identify an individual user. IP addresses are typically allocated by a user's Internet Service Provider, and often change dynamically over time.

So Viacom would need to contact your ISP if it wanted to find out more information about the IP address.

But there is no suggestion that Viacom is going to do this, nor any suggestion that ISPs would comply with such a request unless backed by a court order.

Not has Viacom said it is interested in pursuing individual users of YouTube through the courts.

Heineken Helen

dunkman wrote:

Does that mean Viacom knows what I have watched online?

If Viacom wanted to, the firm would be able to see which particular YouTube user has watched which particular clips.

But that is not necessarily the same thing as knowing who you are and what you have watched.

Privacy advocates are concerned that a combination of a users' YouTube login ID, a computer IP address and a user's viewing habits might be enough to personally identify individuals.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that many people pick login IDs that relate directly to them, including their name.

A computer's IP address is also not enough in every case to identify an individual user. IP addresses are typically allocated by a user's Internet Service Provider, and often change dynamically over time.

So Viacom would need to contact your ISP if it wanted to find out more information about the IP address.

But there is no suggestion that Viacom is going to do this, nor any suggestion that ISPs would comply with such a request unless backed by a court order.

Not has Viacom said it is interested in pursuing individual users of YouTube through the courts.

Just most cases then eh?

so why do they want the info if they're not going to do anything at all with it? sounds quite odd to me.

dunkman

Heineken Helen wrote:

Just most cases then eh?

so why do they want the info if they're not going to do anything at all with it? sounds quite odd to me.

Viacom said it wanted the logging database to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

It wants to know if the most popular videos ever watched on YouTube infringe its copyright.

Heineken Helen

dunkman wrote:

Viacom said it wanted the logging database to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

It wants to know if the most popular videos ever watched on YouTube infringe its copyright.

why then, shouldn't they just have to hand over the figures... I don't understand why IP addresses or any other information are necessary in this case.

Rhinocerous Surprise

dunkman wrote:

Viacom said it wanted the logging database to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

It wants to know if the most popular videos ever watched on YouTube infringe its copyright.

They don't really need any of this info to find that out, though. Just look at the number of views their videos have right beneath the player. This really achieves nothing except putting the privacy of Youtube users in what you might call reasonable doubt.

dunkman

Heineken Helen wrote:

why then, shouldn't they just have to hand over the figures... I don't understand why IP addresses or any other information are necessary in this case.

yep.. i'm with you on this one... they dont need to know that... and Google are asking that Viacom receive this info in an anonymous format. so we'll see!!

but common sense will prevail on this one... i think the appeal will go in googles favour and even if they have to hand over viewing figure data, i doubt they'll hand over actual usernames/ip data.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-expose-viewing-habits-youtube-us

thats a good article so it is

Heineken Helen

dunkman wrote:

yep.. i'm with you on this one... they dont need to know that... and Google are asking that Viacom receive this info in an anonymous format. so we'll see!!

but common sense will prevail on this one... i think the appeal will go in googles favour and even if they have to hand over viewing figure data, i doubt they'll hand over actual usernames/ip data.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-expose-viewing-habits-youtube-us

thats a good article so it is

well hopefully that's how it'll go. Otherwise, it's just stupid. The argument of 'what they could do with the info' is null in this case. The argument is 'there's just no justification in giving it to them'

catefrances

i dont care who knows what ive googled. ive broken no laws and relish any scrutiny they choose to apply to my viewing and trolling habits.:)

Heineken Helen

catefrances wrote:

i dont care who knows what ive googled. ive broken no laws and relish any scrutiny they choose to apply to my viewing and trolling habits.:)

I DON'T relish the scrutiny... BECAUSE I've broken no laws. Besides, anyone who knows me here knows one thing I'm DEFINITELY not guilty of is illegal OR legal downloads

catefrances

Heineken Helen wrote:

I DON'T relish the scrutiny... BECAUSE I've broken no laws. Besides, anyone who knows me here knows one thing I'm DEFINITELY not guilty of is illegal OR legal downloads

so whats your problem then?
are you under the delusion that they dont already know where you visit and what you do online?

Heineken Helen

catefrances wrote:

so whats your problem then?
are you under the delusion that they dont already know where you visit and what you do online?

my problem is legitimising and legalising it for them. I thought my problem is pretty obvious. They have no right to that information.

Rhinocerous Surprise

catefrances wrote:

so whats your problem then?
are you under the delusion that they dont already know where you visit and what you do online?

What I do online is my business until I make it somebody else's business.

catefrances

you irish are becoming quite the paranoid bunch aint ya?

rhino... what youre doing is on a public information medium. its everybodys business anyway.

:rolleyes:

and helen... you and me in about a year, we are gonna get seriously drunk girl. and fuck everyone who feels the need to probe into our internet habits.

Rhinocerous Surprise

catefrances wrote:

you irish are becoming quite the paranoid bunch aint ya?

rhino... what youre doing is on a public information medium. its everybodys business anyway.

:rolleyes:

and helen... you and me in about a year, we are gonna get seriously drunk girl. and fuck everyone who feels the need to probe into our internet habits.

Not really. If I search something on Google, unless I'm searching kiddie pics or something, then it's between me and Google. Viacom have no more entitlement to that information than any random guy in the street. If I'm paranoid, it's only cos they're all plotting against me.

catefrances

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Not really. If I search something on Google, unless I'm searching kiddie pics or something, then it's between me and Google. Viacom have no more entitlement to that information than any random guy in the street. If I'm paranoid, it's only cos they're all plotting against me.

so youre going the pete townsend defense huh? i swear your honour i was only doing research

oh and hey babe im with you...just cause youre paranoid doesnt mean theyre not after you.


i just find it interesting that you dont already think this knowledge is known.

Rhinocerous Surprise

catefrances wrote:

so youre going the pete townsend defense huh? i swear your honour i was only doing research

oh and hey babe im with you...just cause youre paranoid doesnt mean theyre not after you.


i just find it interesting that you dont already think this knowledge is known.

Pete Townshend is an inspiration to all of us, in a myriad of ways.

And it's not that I don't think this info is known... it's that I don't think it should be. Letting them get away with it just because it's already going on doesn't sit right with me. But I'm young, and yet to be completely crushed by the world's ways.

evenkat

My guess is the ruling will be appealed to a higher court.

Heineken Helen

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

And it's not that I don't think this info is known... it's that I don't think it should be. Letting them get away with it just because it's already going on doesn't sit right with me. But I'm young, and yet to be completely crushed by the world's ways.

AGREED!

And Cate, a year eh? Ya coming over then? We're gonna fuck THEM ALL? :eek: we're gonna be busy

hopefully kat

catefrances

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Pete Townshend is an inspiration to all of us, in a myriad of ways.

And it's not that I don't think this info is known... it's that I don't think it should be. Letting them get away with it just because it's already going on doesn't sit right with me. But I'm young, and yet to be completely crushed by the world's ways.

though im not a fan of the who, pete townsend's fuck you attitude is something i can relate to.

but how can it not be known? it already is. is it the fact that youve only now become aware of it and the fact that viacom is involved? i wouldnt mind that a behemoth the size of viacom be made aware that what i listen to is not the shit they push.

catefrances

Heineken Helen wrote:

AGREED! : )

And Cate, a year eh? Ya coming over then? We're gonna fuck THEM ALL? :eek: we're gonna be busy : o

hopefully kat

i'll be at glastonbury next year. knee deep in mud and high as a kite. ireland aint that far a jump from there you know?

well fuck them all figuratively speaking of course. :rolleyes:

Rhinocerous Surprise

catefrances wrote:

though im not a fan of the who, pete townsend's fuck you attitude is something i can relate to.

but how can it not be known? it already is. is it the fact that youve only now become aware of it and the fact that viacom is involved? i wouldnt mind that a behemoth the size of viacom be made aware that what i listen to is not the shit they push.

What I'm objecting to is the fact that this court decision would legitimise them having access to the info. If I wanted Viacom to know what I was watching, I'ld write them a letter with a detailed list.

Heineken Helen

catefrances wrote:

i'll be at glastonbury next year. knee deep in mud and high as a kite. ireland aint that far a jump from there you know?

well fuck them all figuratively speaking of course. :rolleyes:

Excellent! Keep me updated!

Figuratively :(