Just like the title says,

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.

(from Wired)

I see two problems with this:

One: the blatant invasion of privacy

Two: people watching midget porn on YouTube. I don't think they're going to be happy that Viacom knows.

redct:

Two: people watching midget porn on YouTube. I don't think they're going to be happy that Viacom knows.

Forget the people who watch the midget porn, what about the rest of us? Once Viacom sees the tremendous interest in midget porn, we're going to get nothing but midget porn 24 hours a day.

 Now if I were Google, I would be rather tempted to deliver all this information in dead-tree form...

I'm not the least worried about this, given that:

- I don't even live in the US, and

- I doubt my ISP would move a finger to match IP's with users.

Those using the crippled cablemodem ISP's are even less worried, as those use some kind of crappy NAT, so one IP could be shared with an entire neighborhood.

This is evidence collection in a legal case between the two companies. It doesn't look like overly broad discovery at all, I don't see why a plaintiff shouldn't be allowed to know to what extent possible damages may be. I'm not sure that all the details of non-infringing video usage are neccesary though but..

1) Evidence may become public record, but usually confidential information is sealed. Both parties lawyers and the court will have access, but that's it.

2) You can't just go around and use evidence in a (what's this, a civil suit?) for marketing purposes, product development, etc.  This may be used to build a case against google, but that's it.

3) Why are people so afraid of Viacom getting this data? I'd be more worried about Google collecting this, and cross-referencing it with your email, your appointments, your documents, your chats, your web searches.

Do people really think that Viacoms lawyers (or law firms hired by them) are going to sell off the old case evidence once the case is over? I trust them to know better than to mishandle evidence like that. Google, however, can do pretty much whatever they want with the data (tooth-less privacy policy aside), including sell it to, say, doubleclick. Oh wait, they own them already :)

Nandurius:

This is evidence collection in a legal case between the two companies. It doesn't look like overly broad discovery at all, I don't see why a plaintiff shouldn't be allowed to know to what extent possible damages may be. I'm not sure that all the details of non-infringing video usage are neccesary though but..

 

Uninvolved legally-bound third-party anyone?  In more advanced countries, it's absolutely illegal to hand over wholesale information like this without court orders, and the courts in those countries generally require the information be given to uninvolved parties.  Now, a specific case where illegal activity can be proven, like "Here, I watched someone at IP x.x.x.x download copyrighted item y without permission", that might fly without having to go to a third-party.  A case like "Well, out of 1 million downloads, we believe 2 were illegal.  But we want the other 999,998 people's IPs as well, you know, just in case..." would be laughed out of court.

SuperousOxide:

Forget the people who watch the midget porn, what about the rest of us? Once Viacom sees the tremendous interest in midget porn, we're going to get nothing but midget porn 24 hours a day.

 

What's the downside of this?

billhead:

What's the downside of this?

 

Let me gues... you're another dutch member? :-)

 

SuperousOxide:

redct:

Two: people watching midget porn on YouTube. I don't think they're going to be happy that Viacom knows.

Forget the people who watch the midget porn, what about the rest of us? Once Viacom sees the tremendous interest in midget porn, we're going to get nothing but midget porn 24 hours a day.

you say that like it's a ba-

 

ah...

 

Ahem. YES, AND THAT WOULD BE A VERY, VERY BAD THING. 

 I highly doubt that there's midget porn on YouTube, given that it would violate their terms of service.  But if you know of such a video, you should post the link....just to prove that it's there......

 You guys are all missing the point of why this is a good thing.  Think of how many times Viacom's lawyers will get RickRoll'd while scanning through this thing.

shepd:

(...)Now, a specific case where illegal activity can be proven, like "Here, I watched someone at IP x.x.x.x download copyrighted item y without permission", that might fly without having to go to a third-party.  A case like "Well, out of 1 million downloads, we believe 2 were illegal.  But we want the other 999,998 people's IPs as well, you know, just in case..." would be laughed out of court.

Well, this case seems more like the latter than the former. You can't tell who's been watching what, and the blog entry in the first post link says that Viacom asked those logs so that they could prove that most of the videos in YouTube are illegal:

Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement.

Nandurius:

This is evidence collection in a legal case between the two companies. It doesn't look like overly broad discovery at all, I don't see why a plaintiff shouldn't be allowed to know to what extent possible damages may be. I'm not sure that all the details of non-infringing video usage are neccesary though but..

 

In most European countries, it would be illegal for Google to keep such records for long enough to comply with the judge's order. Especially if they can really connect data with real life names. Sharing that much information about individual, identifiable users without their explicit consent is absolutely inacceptable by European standards. And I absolutely fail to see why Viacom would need those information for their lawsuit.

Renan "C#" Sousa:

Well, this case seems more like the latter than the former. You can't tell who's been watching what, and the blog entry in the first post link says that Viacom asked those logs so that they could prove that most of the videos in YouTube are illegal:

Couldn't they just ask for a list of videos and the times they were downloaded? Why do they need usernames and IPs?

SuperousOxide:

Couldn't they just ask for a list of videos and the times they were downloaded? Why do they need usernames and IPs?

Probably to track unique infringements and those who uploaded the material in the first place. 

SuperousOxide:

Renan "C#" Sousa:

Well, this case seems more like the latter than the former. You can't tell who's been watching what, and the blog entry in the first post link says that Viacom asked those logs so that they could prove that most of the videos in YouTube are illegal:

Couldn't they just ask for a list of videos and the times they were downloaded? Why do they need usernames and IPs?

 

Probably to prove that the users weren't authorized to download said content?  It would be a hell of a thing if Viacom setup a botnet to post and download their own content to cook up evidence of their content being downloaded.

This is one major problem I see in this situation, the Judge fails to treat this as an international situation and fails to see this case from the perspective of all countries -- These are NOT only US Citizens that are in Google's databases. I'm sure this judge is forcing Google to break other countries laws by this decision -- I wonder if some citizens of EU Countries where there are high privacy laws can sue the judge and/or Viacom for privacy invasion...

DigitalXeron:

This is one major problem I see in this situation, the Judge fails to treat this as an international situation and fails to see this case from the perspective of all countries -- These are NOT only US Citizens that are in Google's databases. I'm sure this judge is forcing Google to break other countries laws by this decision -- I wonder if some citizens of EU Countries where there are high privacy laws can sue the judge and/or Viacom for privacy invasion...

It definitely breaches other countries' laws ... but that didn't stop the US from snooping around SWIFT transactions in the past ... even when some of those transactions didn't even touch the US. They just said "the data's in the US, so we've got control over it."

Given that SWIFT inter-banking information is much more sensitive than simple user accounts, I doubt this would matter much to the judge.

mallard:

 Now if I were Google, I would be rather tempted to deliver all this information in dead-tree form...

It's petty, but I like it.  Print it on ultra-low-grade paper, draft resolution, font size 4 too for "environmental" reasons.

danixdefcon5:

I'm not the least worried about this, given that:

- I don't even live in the US, and

- I doubt my ISP would move a finger to match IP's with users.

Those using the crippled cablemodem ISP's are even less worried, as those use some kind of crappy NAT, so one IP could be shared with an entire neighborhood.

 

Dude, Mexico is going to be the first country to do whatever the US tells them to do. Dont't forget that.

Also, whatever ISP you use, chances are that it's owned by a US company. Do the math yourself.

Zagyg:

mallard:

 Now if I were Google, I would be rather tempted to deliver all this information in dead-tree form...

It's petty, but I like it.  Print it on ultra-low-grade paper, draft resolution, font size 4 too for "environmental" reasons.

And make some typing mistakes and don't correct your typing mistakes before sending it. That way, nobody can figure out the correct information. And then spill something on it and try to clean it off, but it still makes it hard to read even after you have cleaned it off.

: IF COMPILE ?-GOTO COMPILE-HERE ; IMMEDIATE
: THEN HERE SWAP ! ; IMMEDIATE
: ELSE COMPILE GOTO COMPILE-HERE SWAP HERE SWAP ! ; IMMEDIATE

DrJokepu:

Dude, Mexico is going to be the first country to do whatever the US tells them to do. Dont't forget that.

True, though I doubt any anti-piracy subpoenas would happen here, unless they want to sue the whole country.

DrJokepu:

 

Also, whatever ISP you use, chances are that it's owned by a US company. Do the math yourself.

Fortunately, my ISP isn't owned by a US company ... in fact, its quite the opposite: they bought Prodigy some time ago, one of the Baby Bells, and the owner (Carlos Slim) has gone on a buying spree in the US, including CompUSA. Oh, the guy by the way is Forbes' #2 richest man in the world. (Yes, even above Bill Gates.)

 

DigitalXeron:

This is one major problem I see in this situation, the Judge fails to treat this as an international situation and fails to see this case from the perspective of all countries -- These are NOT only US Citizens that are in Google's databases. I'm sure this judge is forcing Google to break other countries laws by this decision -- I wonder if some citizens of EU Countries where there are high privacy laws can sue the judge and/or Viacom for privacy invasion...

I'm quite sure that this isn't the first time, and i'm even more sure that it won't be the last.

While i don't like the fact that its happening, there is very little that can be done about it and it hardly qualifies as important enough to start a international debate about. The only real step you can make against it as a person is to write a angry letter to google telling them what you read on the news and by the laws of your country ordering them to remove all their records that refer to you. 

Unless you happen to be extreemly important i doubt you will even get a message back. 

stratos:

write a angry letter to google

 

If they were ordered by a court, why would you write to Google? Write to your representatives in the state to protect you.

As far as international? I don't know what the procedure is, but writing to Google is on the ridiculous side.

DigitalXeron:

This is one major problem I see in this situation, the Judge fails to treat this as an international situation and fails to see this case from the perspective of all countries -- These are NOT only US Citizens that are in Google's databases. I'm sure this judge is forcing Google to break other countries laws by this decision -- I wonder if some citizens of EU Countries where there are high privacy laws can sue the judge and/or Viacom for privacy invasion...

Actually if you read the Terms of Use of youtube.com you might have seen article 14

You agree that: (i) the YouTube Website shall be deemed solely based in California; and (ii) the YouTube Website shall be deemed a passive website that does not give rise to personal jurisdiction over YouTube, either specific or general, in jurisdictions other than California. These Terms of Service shall be governed by the internal substantive laws of the State of California, without respect to its conflict of laws principles.

You've already agreed that you tube solely governed by Californian/US laws... Therefore the US courts can do whatever they want with ALL data, even that of non US nationals.