Judge orders Google to turn over YouTube user data to Viacom
posted at 7:58 pm on July 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Might as well own up now that the cat’s out of the bag: I’ve been known to watch a “Hot for Words” clip or two in my time.
I’m into words.
Judge Louis L. Stanton actually delivered a mixed ruling — he refused Viacom’s demand that Google turn over YouTube’s source code, the software that runs the site, agreeing with Google that that was a trade secret.
But he used Google’s own argument, explained here on Google’s own site, that revealing users’ Internet Protocol addresses — which identify every single computer, server, cell phone or toaster connected to the Internet — does not constitute an invasion of privacy…
Viacom wants the data to prove that copyrighted “stolen” material is more popular among YouTube visitors than original “user-generated” material.
It sought the source code to show that YouTube does have software in place to filter out some objectionable content — for example, YouTube manages to keep pornography and explicit nudity off the site — but chooses to allow copyrighted material as part of its business model.
The source code would have been fascinating as potential evidence that they really are looking the other way at jihadist material. As for the user information, let me ask a stupid question: Why does Viacom need IP addresses to figure out whether copyrighted material gets more views than user-generated stuff? YouTube publishes the number of views under each clip. If all you want is the aggregate data, it’s already there and accessible.
I hope it’s overturned on appeal on principle but I have to say, as between the two companies and their respective capacities to harvest and exploit personal information, Viacom ain’t the one I’m worried about.
Update: Riveting.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Whatayaknow!!!:
Copyright owners want to keep tab on their own products!
Go figure.
mylegsareswollen on July 3, 2008 at 8:01 PM
One possible consequence of this: Scientology’s lawyers can crack down on those who have Scientology videos on their channels. Ooh, that’s not good for some of us…
mram on July 3, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Not only are the looking the other way at jihadist material, they’re hosting Palestinian propaganda on Google Earth.
flipflop on July 3, 2008 at 8:08 PM
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m curious: Does this actually give them an argument?
I mean, with the VHS vs Sony argument, would it have mattered if people made more illegal copies than bought videos?
I thought the legal point was not whether or not it had a legal purpose for existence, not whether or not more people used the legal than illegal purpose.
Any lawyers able to comment on that?
apollyonbob on July 3, 2008 at 8:08 PM
“kid + nap”?
“to catch a snach”?
“nafzen” (isn’t that a beer?)?
“… my students”?
Uh, oh……. time to clean the ol’ hard drive!
Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2008 at 8:17 PM
No lie, I was bored last night and watched about 5 or 6 of her videos.. :)
Chakra Hammer on July 3, 2008 at 8:29 PM
What about the humping robots? Is that copyrighted or user-generated stuff?
dentalque on July 3, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Riveting indeed.
bigbeas on July 3, 2008 at 8:31 PM
Damn! I’m subscribing right now, teacher!
Wait………..what was this thread about again?
BacaDog on July 3, 2008 at 8:34 PM
I think O’Reilly has a crush on her. I was flipping channels the other night and she was a guest on The Factor. She’s smokin’ hot.
robblefarian on July 3, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Brave new world, indeed.
BacaDog on July 3, 2008 at 8:39 PM
No lie, I was bored last night and watched about 5 or 6 of her videos.. :)
Chakra Hammer on July 3, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Let’s see 5 * 3min = . . .
I joke, I really have largish my reverberation from watching her precipitations.
But seriously her shows really do teach and aren’t just t&a. Wasn’t there a study saying that children learn more from attractive teachers because they pay more attention?
- The Cat
MirCat on July 3, 2008 at 8:43 PM
Pedant’s dream woman! Allahpundit, you done well to link to her.
ForNow on July 3, 2008 at 8:47 PM
I think the subject is interesting, and her accent is neat..
Her looks are just a plus. :)
Chakra Hammer on July 3, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Wait a minute. Isn’t this like having a person turn over the inventory of your house to the guy that says you stole his stuff?
Isn’t this like having a guy turn over his DNA to a woman and not the court for a paternity suit?
Isn’t this like bugging The Watergate?
- The Cat
P.S. This is like an e-book publisher suing apple over the i-pod.
MirCat on July 3, 2008 at 8:49 PM
I used to find some copyrighted material on YouTube, but I don’t even run across any these days–barring the rare short outtakes which should be legal and actually help advertise for Viacom’s products. I can’t claim to be avid YouTuber, but I don’t think Viacom is correct given what I see when I go to YouTube.
thuja on July 3, 2008 at 8:53 PM
Who knew etymology could be so…uh, captivating?!
CP on July 3, 2008 at 8:58 PM
She was on O’Reilly.
And I think she watches him, well from her reactions.
- The Cat
MirCat on July 3, 2008 at 8:58 PM
O boy,Hot for Words,I swear I only watched 1 of
her video’s,now I’m busted,guilty as charged!haha.
canopfor on July 3, 2008 at 9:02 PM
thuja at 8:53 PM-
Music videos, film clips, tv shows, etc., etc., etc., are all copyrighted material, and make up a good chunk of youtube’s biz.
Youtube should have to pay the owners a fee, like every jukebox owner, store with piped in music, etc., for every view.
Trying to pry into the IP addresses of their customers is just a threat to scare them into sending money.
Which should be blocked by a court as irrelevant.
profitsbeard on July 3, 2008 at 9:03 PM
I really hope somebody hacks into Judge Louis L. Stanton’s privacy.
Google please leak Judge Louis L. Stanton’s records. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
It’s what I was going to ask before I saw AP already put it up there. This judge probably uses a typewriter. But I think Viacom is just trying to get a wealth of marketing data. Number of views alone don’t show individual buying habits, correlations, and patterns. When you are a media conglomerate and so much of your business is made on cross promotional marketing this stuff is priceless.
LevStrauss on July 3, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Could they sue viewers for monetary damages? Kind of like the music industry is doing with people that download music?
jmarcure on July 3, 2008 at 9:39 PM
I am embarrassed that a person with a eastern accent has more knowledge about the English language than I do.
I do have the 1989 publication of “The Origin of Words”, which is quite amusing. But, as I said before, I am embarrassed! (Give me a break - I am a product of public school system when the state of Louisiana was know as the most corrupt state - Oh BTW, not much has changed!)
OT - BTW, has anyone noticed the Fox factor of Jamie Colby has risen lately? I think she is looking good compared to when she started with Fox.
lsutiger on July 3, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Yeah, I saw that, she taught O’Reilly a thing or two.
Let me guess, O Perry Walker?
abinitioadinfinitum on July 3, 2008 at 10:36 PM
I aways find it entertaining (pun intended) when media companies claim losses due to copyright infringement. They make bajillions of dollars and spend it creating new shows. IMHO they lose money because their products suck, not because the Internet is replacing them.
After all, isn’t the free advertising worth it? I wonder how many people have gone out and purchased a DVD set of Family Guy or some other show because they were inspired/reminded of a shows greatness by watching a video on YouTube? My wife is reliving her childhood now thanks to finding nuggets on YouTube. The current DVD set on the table? Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries. She would NEVER have purchased them if she didn’t take that trip down memory lane on YouTube.
I think Viacom et al need to stop looking this gift horse in the mouth.
Just my $0.02.
cannonball on July 3, 2008 at 11:17 PM
I aways find it entertaining (pun intended) when media companies claim losses due to copyright infringement. They make bajillions of dollars and spend it creating new shows. IMHO they lose money because their products suck, not because the Internet is replacing them.
After all, isn’t the free advertising worth it? I wonder how many people have gone out and purchased a DVD set of Family Guy or some other show because they were inspired/reminded of a shows greatness by watching a video on YouTube? My wife is reliving her childhood now thanks to finding nuggets on YouTube. The current DVD set on the table? Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries. She would NEVER have purchased them if she didn’t first take that trip down memory lane on YouTube.
I think Viacom et al need to stop looking this gift horse in the mouth.
Just my $0.02.
cannonball on July 3, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Seems obvious to me they want to know if the sources are limited and perhaps even Youtube itself. Also, it’s possible Youtube is deflating the true popularity of these videos to limit the scope of the impact of any infringement claims. All of that can’t be determined by a counter which may or may not be accurate. Hence you’d like to see the code and the unique ips.
The idea here is they want to show YouTube’s business model is built upon infringement and they have taken to hide the scope of it. If they can do that they can clean Google’s clock.
TheBigOldDog on July 3, 2008 at 11:22 PM
They aren’t after the viewers. They are after Google. The music industry went after large downloaders purely as a deterrent to help dry up both source and demand because the downloades were also sources in file sharing networks.
TheBigOldDog on July 3, 2008 at 11:26 PM
Can they sue me for not having viewing habits?
Limerick on July 3, 2008 at 11:27 PM
Except it isn’t. What if the data shows the sources of a fair amount of that copywrited material is Youtube dummy accounts set up for just that purpose? What is it shows that the number of viewers of coywrited material is being under reported by a factor of 10 or even 100? What if the code showed that they deliberately under reported viewers for only copywrited material and had filters for porn and other objectionable material by not copywrited material?
This isn’t about the users. Everybody can relax.
TheBigOldDog on July 3, 2008 at 11:32 PM
I think I can comment in this thread without my hot kentucky gf killing me.
What was the thread about again?
aikidoka on July 3, 2008 at 11:46 PM
Family Guy literally owes it’s revival to being on sites like Youtube (and another one I won’t mention for fear of angering the HA gods) which lead to their being picked up on Cartoon Network and then brought back to Fox.
It seems to me that music videos are tenuous at best since they are commercials that normally have to pay to be on MTV or other channels. You’d think they be happy to have people showing them to get people to flock to iTunes and Amazon to pick em up.
I rarely see full TV shows on there anymore either. It’s a confusing mess because some companies fully welcome people upping clips (Major League Soccer comes to mind because they know the more people who watch might go to their website or a game or watch on TV etc.)
Asking for the IP addresses is 99% sure for getting people in for a civil suit. The ONLY reason I could see them wanting them would be to see what country most viewers are from. Because if most of the viewers are coming from foreign countries that don’t normally get their shows, it kinda kills a lot of their arguments on lost revenue.
Oh and if HotForWords was the model for all future high school teachers, this country would be full of straight male and lesbian super geniuses. I’d never miss a day of school if that was my teacher.
MannyT-vA on July 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmmm. I wonder if she has any other lingual skills.
Red Creek on July 4, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Is Family Guy owned by any of the companies owned by Viacom? If no then you have your answer. It’s just another way to kill competition. I think Viacom owns MTV and if musicians learn that they don’t need MTV to promote their music . .
It’s the same with MP3s, it’s not about losing money for the artists, it’s keeping the artists under the control of the labels.
- The Cat
MirCat on July 5, 2008 at 5:35 AM
Maybe as TheBigOldDog says, Viacom thinks that Google is manipulating the counts — but that doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t know why YouTube would do that, their argument is that they have “safe harbor” protection. The person who posted the video is liable (and that could certainly be why Viacom wants the IP addresses).
Mark Jaquith on July 5, 2008 at 7:28 PM