Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom

[simon275]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/judge-orders-yo.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080703-viacom-wont-get-googles-source-code-will-get-12tb-of-youtube-data.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/07/03/ST2008070304015.html

Pretty big invasion of privacy. Youtube has all its user histories over to Viacom. Hope no one has being uploading music videos. It could have being a lot worse though with google having to give up its users private videos.

[luciusad2004]

This has fail written all over it. Viacom is probably just going to misuse the information to go after every penny they can. I'm sure there are alot of legitimate instances of copyright infringement but should they really recieve information regarding EVERY user as opposed to just those suspected of copyright infringement? I find it harder and harder to respect these large corporations and their rights everytime they flex their muscle and show us what they really think of their viewers/listeners, and I'm normally very supportive of copyright.

[Quakken]

Glad I've never uploaded anything that would implicate me to youtube. In fact, come to think of it, I've never uploaded anything to youtube. Good thing, now that all information about me would have been given to viacom.

But 12 terabytes of date is going to take a load of time to sift through. a buttload of time.

I would hate to be one of the guys on the viacom legal team. This is another occurrence of judges giving near unconstitutional reign to legal teams to prevent copyright. War on drugs? Psh. War on copyright infractors is where it's at. Soon, you won't even be able to have a torrent program without being worried about a copyright lawyer invading your privacy and suing you because it would have been possible for you to illegally download something.

[xRyokenx]

Soon, you won't even be able to have a torrent program without being worried about a copyright lawyer invading your privacy and suing you because it would have been possible for you to illegally download something.

Nah, by having a library card or by working somewhere that has a computer and the ability for a dial-up connection will be enough for you to torrent something illegally according to their standards, lol. That or by living within an hour of someone with a computer, hahaha.

Not quite so off-topic, I have a YouTube account but only uploaded some crap I did in the Spore Creature Creator.

[Quakken]

yeah...

[xRyokenx]

lol, when I get pissed I get a little "over the top" with sarcasm. Sorry, lol.

...

...

*glances around nervously and leaves*

[luciusad2004]

What i don't get is, what about all the people who don't do anything except upload family videos, videos of their kids, special occasions, etc. Are they supposed to just sit back and accept the fact that all of their information was just given to viacom? Is it really fare to them? I suppose it doesn't matter though, im sure the user liscence agreement states that YouTube will give all necessary information when it comes to legal matters. Nothing anybody can do to challenge it.

[Drum Thumper]

What i don't get is, what about all the people who don't do anything except upload family videos, videos of their kids, special occasions, etc. Are they supposed to just sit back and accept the fact that all of their information was just given to viacom? Is it really fare to them? I suppose it doesn't matter though, im sure the user liscence agreement states that YouTube will give all necessary information when it comes to legal matters. Nothing anybody can do to challenge it.

Well, if I happen to see my video of my M40 on MTV, I'm gonna sue their collective asses!

[J-Roc]

I dont get it. Are they going to sue somone for uploading a cheesy slide show with the latest R&B track playing in the background? Half the youtube population will end up in court. Most video's on youtube have music playing in them.

This seems like one more step towards net nutrality. (or is it against? idfk)

[simon275]

But still the songs used in the "Cheesy slide shows" still violate copy write. In theory yes they could take half the youtube population to court. But it would not be cost effective. If they do go after anyone it will only be the guys who have uploaded like 100+ music videos they have recorded of MTV or something.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. That is about providing equal access and opportunity on the internet.

[luciusad2004]

I dont get it. Are they going to sue somone for uploading a cheesy slide show with the latest R&B track playing in the background? Half the youtube population will end up in court. Most video's on youtube have music playing in them.

This seems like one more step towards net nutrality. (or is it against? idfk)

actually, its not unheard of. I read once about a time when the RIAA sued a woman for having a clip of a song in her video on youtube. But get this, the video was a home video of her infant dancing to said song. The song was barely audible and as mentioned, it was just a small fraction of the song. The RIAA or MPAA will sue anyone they think they can squeeze money out of. And even then, from what ive read (i can't remember the article at the moment) barely and of the money won during a copy right infringement case ever actually goes to the artist. It's rediculous.

[Quakken]

Well, personally I'm against copyrighted music being used badly for youtube videos. Doesn't it say somewhere in the youtube terms of service that you can't use copyrighted material, or do they not care about it? (read- I know they don't care, but do they have something saying against it in their TOS?)

[luciusad2004]

Well, personally I'm against copyrighted music being used badly for youtube videos. Doesn't it say somewhere in the youtube terms of service that you can't use copyrighted material, or do they not care about it? (read- I know they don't care, but do they have something saying against it in their TOS?)

I'm sure it's in there for "legal reasons." If it wasn't they probably wouldn't be able to protect themselves while their users break copyright left and right. And i don't mean to say i support copyright infringement, i certainly don't, but i do think the current system is a little bit draconian. Though i do suppose it could be much worse.

[b4i7]

i guess i can see where they would be upset with music videos etc, but of like a home video with the music playing in the background? thats simply retarded

they may as well sue for owning a radio as well

[Quakken]

I make movies, and not once have I used copyrighted music in one and submitted it to anywhere. People who do are just copping out. If it's just a home video and it happened to be playing in the background, who cares. But, if somebody actually took the time to add some copyrighted music to their slideshow, then they have no precidence or reason to get off.

[nevermind1534]

I guess it's what you define as fair use. Most of the people also make no money on the videos.

[Quakken]

If they don't credit it, then they should have a light punishment. If they do credit it, they should have the RIAA say to them "hey- don't do that again." and be let off. But it's not the RIAA we're talking about here, so they won't be punished.