Google must divulge YouTube log of EVERY user

[SiHart]

Frigtening news for all of us who are worried about their personal privacy and freedom:

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled.
The ruling comes as part of Google's legal battle with Viacom over allegations of copyright infringement.
Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the ruling a "set-back to privacy rights".
The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.
While the legal battle between the two firms is being contested in the US, it is thought the ruling will apply to YouTube users and their viewing habits everywhere.
Viacom, which owns MTV and Paramount Pictures, has alleged that YouTube is guilty of massive copyright infringement.

The UK's Premier League association is also seeking class action status with Viacom on the issue, alleging YouTube, which was bought by Google in 2006, has been used to watch football highlights.
When it initiated legal action in March 2007 Viacom said it had identified about 160,000 unauthorised clips of its programmes on the website, which had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times.
Following the launch of its billion-dollar lawsuit, YouTube introduced filtering tools in an effort to prevent copyright materials from appearing on the site.

The US court declined Viacom's request that Google be forced to hand over the source code of YouTube, saying it was a "trade secret" that should not be disclosed.
But it said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative".
Google's senior litigation counsel Catherine Lacavera said in a statement: "We are disappointed the court granted Viacom's over-reaching demand for viewing history.
"We will ask Viacom to respect users' privacy and allow us to anonymise the logs before producing them under the court's order."

The ruling will see the viewing habits of millions of YouTube users given to Viacom, totalling more than 12 terabytes of data.
Viacom said it wanted the data to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

Leading privacy expert Simon Davies told BBC News that the privacy of millions of YouTube users was threatened.
He said: "The chickens have come home to roost for Google.
"Their arrogance and refusal to listen to friendly advice has resulted in the privacy of tens of millions being placed under threat."
Mr Davies said privacy campaigners had warned Google for years that IP addresses were personally identifiable information.
Google pledged last year to anonymise IP addresses for search information but it has said nothing about YouTube data.
Mr Davies said: "Governments and organisations are realising that companies like Google have a warehouse full of data. And while that data is stored it is under threat of being used and putting privacy in danger."
The EFF said: "The Court's erroneous ruling is a set-back to privacy rights, and will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube.
"We urge Viacom to back off this overbroad request and Google to take all steps necessary to challenge this order and protect the rights of its users."
The body said the ruling was also potentially unlawful because the log data did contain personally identifiable data.

The court also ruled that Google disclose to Viacom the details of all videos that have been removed from the site for any reason.

What do you think of this?

Si xx

[shada pavlova]

Could this be the end of YouTube?

NOOO!!! I never watched the end of The Face of Evil!!

[WhiteCrow]

It is just scarey the amount of monitoring we're supposed to be under now.

Yes some of it is possibly there to find and fight big crimes, but really I feel if you monitor everyone, you'll soon find out the whole population is guilty of SOMETHING.

[Alex]

Unless they're considering legal action against youtube, I can't see the point, surely from the information each page has about the number of views each video has had they can tell how many people have viewed a specific clip.

Still, as long as no one can kind out my porntube details, I'm not too concerned about it.

[Wayne]

What do you think of this?

In principle, i'm against it.... but personally....

To be honest? I don't care.

I've nothing to hide/be ashamed of.

[shada pavlova]

Okay, Mr. Perfect, but what about the rest of us who DO?

[Si Hunt]

Well that's a bit like going into a police station and saying "C'mon, play fair! How's a hardworking burglur supposed to earn a crust with you patrolling the streets EVERY night?!"

Si.

[SiHart]

What I don't understand about this is why they need to ahve the details of everyone who's watched the videos. Surely, from a copyright point of view they only need to find and prosecute the people who have put up the illegal material, not all the people who've sat and watched it. What are they going to do, make a charge to everyone who's watched illegal material on You Tube? Make everyone pay?

Si xx

[Wayne]

Okay, Mr. Perfect, but what about the rest of us who DO?

Life's too short mate.

[Paul Monk]

They want to prove that illegal clips are watched more than legal clips but surely they don't need to have all the watchers details? Just the numbers watching would do.

[Rob McCow]

E-e-e-e-e-eeeeeasy love! @ Wayne.

There's a lot of rare and interesting stuff (old concert excerpts, promo videos, interviews) that is only available on You Tube. As well as hours and hours of footage of cats falling off chairs and hamster wheel accidents.

I doubt that very much will come of this, but it might be annoying for anyone who's made a video-mash-up, such as Farmergeddon or Pip.

You Tube needs to be better regulated at source, with some checking of the actual videos that go up.

[Si Hunt]

C'mon, youtube is great and requires no checking because it's all too poor quality/too difficult to actually rip and use.

Frequently we use it to check out songs before buying them, and not just to watch videos/research clips and the like. But it would be a great shame if the copyright brigade got rid of it, because there's really no way anyone is going to choose a 10cm square fuzzy Youtube window over a commercial DVD or CD, so we'll just end up losing the most innovative and useful resource on the Internet for nothing.

Si.

[Andrew Curnow]

I agree with that, yes. We even had a call at work the other day - a customer was interested in buying an Ergomat [Brazilian] machine, because he'd seen one on You Tube. I'd even go as far as to say it's probably one of the best and most inventive uses for the 'net so far - I expect it will fall foul now of copyright holders, just because legal minds tend to be very blinkered; but in reality, it's probably more likely to encourage people to go out and buy whatever, if they've seen some kind of version of it on You Tube. Not only that, but if there's stuff on You Tube that ISN'T available elsewhere, but which is getting a lot of hits, then surely it's a good marketing research tool for the copyright holders - they should be thinking, Hey this is popular let's get it out there on the shelves, rather than, Hey that's mine right let's shut them down.

That's off topic a bit - going back to the privacy thing, though, I don't approve at all. Knowing the number of hits on something illegal is fair enough, but knowing the identity of the hitter on something that's perfectly legitimate, no. Information should only be provided if there is something being investigated, IMHO. Why should ANYBODY be able to know what I'm watching on You Tube, unless it's something that's subject to criminal proceedings, or at least to a genuine investigation.

[Dirk Gently]

I agree with what Andrew just said.



And I'm curious as to what Wayne said before the edit. Because I'm a nosey git!

[Rob McCow]

C'mon, youtube is great and requires no checking because it's all too poor quality/too difficult to actually rip and use.

It doesn't matter that it's blocky, Viacom will still argue copyright infringement.

I'd have no objection to this if it said up front that 'your usage of You Tube will be monitored and data may be passed to other bodies such as Viacom.' But I don't believe that it does. Again, if You Tube started passing on statistics to Viacom from this point on then it wouldn't matter if the users were aware it was happening. But to send old data that was collected when You Tube viewers didn't know what it would be used for is wrong.

Everything on You Tube is available to watch via a search. It's all free. There is no actual way of knowing if the amusing cat that you're watching is from a copyrighted video.

[WhiteCrow]

Although I myself feel I have nothing to hide over my YouTube usage, it's the principle I don't like.

I lived for 6 months in East Germany after the wall had come down. Bit by bit you were told of the terrible legacy of the Stazi, the E German secret police who monitored everyone. They would break into your rooms regularly to go through all your personal posessions, log your every movements in and out of buildings, who you came in with etc.

Of course the old argument there was "if you're law abiding you have nothing to hide". But you have to question a society which is becoming so obsessed about monitoring it's members every movement, and whether the society has the potential to become something truely monsterous, as was the case with the Stazi.

It's ironic we're moving towards a society where we are being monitored more and more. It's ironic that because in our own country it's being orchestrated by Parliament by many of the same Labour MPs who were so shocked and outraged to be monitored by MI5 for their activities in the 1980s.

It's hard to remember sometimes that in the cold war, Communist tyranies lost out to freedom and liberty - really?

[WhiteCrow]

There is no actual way of knowing if the amusing cat that you're watching is from a copyrighted video.

Jeremy Beadles lawyers saying "the TV program, You're Been Hurt owns that material copyright".

[Rob McCow]

And I'm curious as to what Wayne said before the edit. Because I'm a nosey git!

I can't tell you that unfortunately, but I will be passing his comments and IP address to Viacom.

[shada pavlova]

It's all just about money. These huge multi-national corporations just want to turn Youtube into a money-making machine. They take the view that if there's any sort of free service anywhere on the internet, the corporations MUST buy it up and start charging people for using it.

If this goes on, pretty soon Viacom'll own Earth's atmosphere and charge people for breathing it, then pump it full of toxins and bump up the prices.

[Dirk Gently]

So not a cynical view point at all then?


Although, you do give me an idea...!

[WhiteCrow]

If this goes on, pretty soon Viacom'll own Earth's atmosphere and charge people for breathing it, then pump it full of toxins and bump up the prices.

Well perhaps we should. We could go into oxygen farming. After all the trees which produce most of the world's oxygen all take up valuable real estate - why shouldn't someone charge for providing this vital service? You have to pay for water and pay for food, so why not oxygen?

At the rate we're burning it all up in cars, and we're decimating Rainforest, it'll soon become a depleted and therefore valuable commodity.

Of course under Gordon Browns government people oxygen will be taxed as a luxury item! There will be two options of payment, either pay annually a fixed rate, with a rebate in the even of death. Or the other option of "pay as you breathe".

[Pip Madeley]

YouTube can kiss my ass.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

That's off topic a bit - going back to the privacy thing, though, I don't approve at all. Knowing the number of hits on something illegal is fair enough, but knowing the identity of the hitter on something that's perfectly legitimate, no. Information should only be provided if there is something being investigated, IMHO. Why should ANYBODY be able to know what I'm watching on You Tube, unless it's something that's subject to criminal proceedings, or at least to a genuine investigation.

I think the bottom line is that Youtube is a US-owned and US-based website. Anyone who registers to it is automatically consenting to give their details to a private company which is subject to US trade laws and US government decrees. If you don't happen to live in the US you have bugger-all say in any of these US court rulings, and if the US suddenly turns into a fascist dictatorship* tomorrow then all the information on youtube/ezboard/myspace etc etc would all be in their hands and there nothing anyone can do about it. And nor do they have a right to complain really.

I don't think it's so much a reduction of privacy, but more due to the fact that people are being less and less private because technology allows them to. People give all sorts of information about themselves to private companies all over the globe these days thanks to the internet and think nothing of it. Maybe that's the real problem.




*make your own jokes