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.

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).

MannyT-vA on July 4, 2008 at 7:33 AM

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

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

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.

What was the thread about again?

Which should be blocked by a court as irrelevant.

profitsbeard on July 3, 2008 at 9:03 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.

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

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.

Why does Viacom need IP addresses to figure out whether copyrighted material gets more views than user-generated stuff?

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.

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.

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.

robblefarian on July 3, 2008 at 8:34 PM

Yeah, I saw that, she taught O’Reilly a thing or two.

lsutiger on July 3, 2008 at 10:12 PM

Let me guess, O Perry Walker?

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.

Google please leak Judge Louis L. Stanton’s records. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

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.

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.

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.

And I think she watches him, well from her reactions.

- The Cat

Viacom wants the data to prove that copyrighted “stolen” material is more popular among YouTube visitors than original “user-generated” material.

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.

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 8:43 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 8:29 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

There is no indication Viacom will seek to track down individual users. It would have to contact users’ Internet service providers — for example, Time Warner Cable, Verizon or America Online — to do so, and it’s not clear if the ISPs would be compelled to turn over the data, especially in a civil case.

Brave new world, indeed.