Google must hand over YouTube data, judge rules

Raising major concerns among privacy advocates, a federal judge has ordered Google to hand over details about the viewing habits of YouTube users to media giant Viacom.

The ruling came Wednesday as part of a $1-billion copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Viacom in March 2007 against YouTube and its corporate parent, Google.

Viacom, which runs cable networks such as MTV and Comedy Central as well as the Paramount Pictures movie studio, says it needs the data about how people use the site to show that its copyright-protected material -- such as clips from "South Park" and "The Colbert Report" (pictured) -- was routinely posted and watched.

Viacom vowed to not use the information it receives from YouTube against any users of the video-sharing site. But the ruling immediately prompted an outcry from privacy watchdogs. Google had fought the request for Viacom to gain access to its viewing logs, saying such a measure would invade its users' privacy. U.S. District Court Judge Louis Stanton in New York disagreed, ordering the Mountain View, Calif., Internet giant to hand over the records, which include log-on names and Internet protocol addresses -- the unique identifier for computers and other Web-connected devices. In most cases, Viacom would need the help of an Internet service provider to identify individuals.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation described the ruling as a "setback to privacy rights" that "threatens to expose deeply private information." The group said the ruling would "allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube," and it urged 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."

In a statement, the entertainment giant said it did not ask for nor would it obtain "any personally identifiable information of any user."

"Any information that we or our outside advisors obtain -- which will not include personally identifiable information -- will be used exclusively for the purpose of proving our case against YouTube and Google, will be handled subject to a court protective order and in a highly confidential manner," the New York-based company said.

Viacom general counsel Michael Fricklas said "unequivocally that this information will not be used" for the purpose of trying to find the identities of people who uploaded copyrighted Viacom clips to YouTube.

Google has denied that YouTube infringes copyright, saying that it removes illegal material once notified, in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Google senior litigation counsel Catherine Lacavera said the company was asking Viacom to respect YouTube users' privacy and to allow YouTube to "anonymize the logs before producing them under the court's order." Fricklas said Viacom was considering the request to render the data anonymous.

Viacom had also asked that Google be forced to disclose YouTube's source code to reveal how the site works, but the judge denied that request.

"YouTube should not be made to place this vital asset in hazard merely to allay speculation," Stanton said.

-- Jessica Guynn

Photo courtesy of Viacom's Comedy Central

Comments

[DOug in Toronto]

"Viacom vowed to not use the information it receives from YouTube against any users of the video-sharing site".

Yeah. Sure.

[sheila]

well, google should not be keeping "viewing logs." my library refuses to keep a record of any transactions in case some over-reaching a-hole like the government (or their masters in the corporatocracy) demands the records. google should do the same. come on guys - do no evil, remember?

[V for Vendetta]

This is typical of corporate legal departments lately, under the pretense of legality to continuosly harrass their victims into submission. Viacom doesn't need that information to know how their copyright is been violated, the information is freely available to anyone and everyone on YouTube. IT IS NOT A SECRET. So, why are they asking for the source code? Why do they want private information? Answer: harrasment. And such kind of harrasment should be illegal. I hope that Google uses its influence and money to pass a law in Congress to make this type of harrasment as illegal as video piracy is.

[Sarah Stevenson]

Tell them how you feel

Anonymous(ly of course

Judge Louis L Stanton
Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St., Room 2250
New York, NY10007

Phones
(212) 805-0252

Faxes
(212) 805-0389

============================
Also:
Assets

This is a summary of the main Viacom divisions. For detailed assets see List of assets owned by Viacom.

* Film Production and Distribution: Viacom International, Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, Republic Pictures, MTV Films, Nickelodeon Movies, Go Fish Pictures
* Television Networks: Comedy Central, Logo, BET, Spike, TV Land, Nick at Nite, Nickelodeon, Noggin, The N, Nick Jr., TEENick, MTV, VH1, MTV2, CMT, MHD
* Television Production and Television Distribution: DreamWorks Television
* Video Gaming: Xfire, Harmonix, GameTrailers, Neopets
* Internet Sites: Screwattack

[rufus]

Google is the new mob boss that is putting everyone else out of business......so the competition thinks that endless litigation will slow down the new top dog. Old media companies seem to think that following RIAA's tactics will help stem their eventual resting place as relics in a museum..

[Mark]

If there is any possibility that the case has merit, then they do need to get some data like this from Google in discovery to proceed.

The problem I see is that they will get the login IDs. They don't really need those. A randomly assigned ID number for each user would have allowed them to do the analysis that they need to do to present their case, without allowing anyone to go onto YouTube, read the profiles, watch the videos, and try to figure out user's identities. I don't think Viacom really cares about user identities, but they are going to be distributing this data to outside consulting firms to analyze who employ young computer geeks who may get their jollies by revealing information that they discover.

Google and the EFF were so busy maintaining their hardline position that they didn't bother to propose compromise solutions, such as anonymized ID numbers. The judge doesn't know from Adam about tech, so he's not going to come up with that sort of solution himself. Viacom doesn't care one way or the other. So I sort of put the blame on Google here.

[Rhonin]

Simple. Do not use or watch anything from Viacom. starting NOW!

[George Riddick]

Ding dong ... the witch is dead!

... or at least she is starting to melt!

Wow ... I would say this is very good news for the entire copyright industry. While potentially inconvenient to YouTube viewers, and understanding the importance of privacy protection in the complex world of the Internet these days, this decision by the judge in the Viacom v. Google/YouTube case in New York may be the best thing that has happened to the copyright industries in this country, and to our overall economy, in practically a decade.

I have been following this infringment case, and others like it, now for several years. I, for one, am sick and tired of the Google's of the world blaming their own customers for all of the infringing activity that occurs day in and day out over the Google sponsored networks. Who do you think gains the most financially from these obvious infringements - Google or the poor smuck in Louisville who does not have a clue what is right or wrong, let alone what is infringing and what is not?

In fact, if it is true that an individual typically adapts his or her production and viewing habits from what they see and are taught by the larger media, entertainment, Fortune 500, and technology companies in this country ("if this weren't legal, certainly mighty Google wouldn't encourage it as they do or run AdSense ads on the infringing sites, and Exxon/Mobile wouldn't be placing ads on the sites that are displaying the "shared" works, either") then who do we really have to blame for this chaos? You guessed it.

It is an unfortunate reality today that many of the copyright defense lawyers, and their publicly financed clients out to make the big bucks regardless of the rules, have made a mockery of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the DMCA), which was signed into law in 1998 by President Clinton. Like the music industry has learned in the school of hard knocks (aka "the real world"), it is virtually impossible today to hold the middlemen in these unlawful Internet distribution channels and networks accountable. So, what do the copyright companies have to do to protect their valuable property? Go directly after the often innocent "end users" who are often sucked into this game, more often unknowingly than not. It is shameful.

Perhaps this New York court decision will help to turn those tides.

Google enables widespread copyright infringement activity like no other company on this planet. Google subsidizes entire networks of infringers through it Adwords and AdSense marketing and advertising programs. Google facilitates willful copyright infringement. Google enables widespread copyright infringement. Day in and day out. Google causes enormous damages to legitimate copyright holders every second of every single day. Google has been doing this for years. They earn a substantial portion of their overall revenue and profits by sponsoring illegal activities over the Internet. And their operations outside the U.S. are far more egregious than the infringement activity we see referenced in this Viacom case, which is largely within our borders.

I, for one, have had enough. Baseless, if not ludicrous, excuses and piracy defense strategies, implemented by what used to be some of the finest copyright law firms in this country - "fair use", "safe harbor", "no harm", "unclean hands", "de minimus damage", "copyright misuse", "DMCA safeguards", "willful blindness", "laches", and on and on, can drag these cases on for years - haven't we seen it all?

What do the legal terms all mean in Google's true vernacular? How about this. "We are big. We are powerful. We can do anything we damn well please. Quit complaining, copyright owners, or we'll cut you off from all the online revenues streams, as well". Better yet, "... if you don't conform, we'll simply run some of this stuff from our operations in Brazil , Russia , India , and China (those BRICS have plenty of money), and let them beam the content back here to the states."

Aren't you tired of watching Google hide behind the skirt-tails of their customers. "They were the ones who loaded the illegal videos onto our system, not us." Or , better yet, "how were we to know that Bart Simpson and the Spice Girls weren't already in the 'Public Domain'?"

Is Google alone in this? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, and others are moving as fast as they can to mimic and duplicate Google's cash cow system, whether the law is violated or not. Cash is the king. And copyrights from the creative industries are not the only victims. Haven't you seen lately, similar claims (and penalties) levied against these giant Internet companies for their advertising efforts to support, or even subsidize in many cases, the distribution of harmful pharmaceutical drugs and counterfeits over the Internet, sponsor illegal gambling and pornography web sites, and many others too numerous to mention. Billions and billions and billions of dollars every single month.

"What do you expect us to do, your honor. Try out every single drug our customers illegally deliver just because we provide the advertising revenues for them to survive?"

This kind of unlawful activity not only helps to destroy our economy, it breaks down the moral fiber of our society. What makes you think this young generation that has grown up witnessing these wide scale unlawful activities delivered to them (usually "free of charge") via the Internet, will be able to draw a distinction between the virtual world and the physical world where STEALING is concerned as they get older and have to put food on a table full of their own babies and elderly parents? The jury is still out on that one.

I applaud the nerve, and the intelligence, of the judge up there in New York who presides over this case between Google and Viacom. Maybe your recent ruling will cause all of these Internet parasites to wake up and see the error of their ways before it is too late for all of us.

As a pleasant footnote to copyright holders. Do you think the judge would have allowed the complete user logs of YouTube to be released in this case if the outcome of this case was not leaning in Viacom's direction? I certainly do not. This may, indeed, be one of the most important weeks in the history of protecting the original works of copyright owners in this country ... one of the few absolute rights that was guaranteed to all of us in our Constitution over 200 years ago.

Congratulations New York . Congratulations copyright holders. It must feel good to know you have some judges up that way have your best interests at heart in enforcing our critically important (and "endangered") copyright laws and maintaining the delicate balance between managing and policing unbridled growth (i.e. "growth at ANY cost") over the Internet and maintaining our vital and long standing ethical, moral, and legal business practices going forward, while looking out for your best interests.

... which old witch ... the wicked witch!

George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

griddick@imageline2.com

[Bryan]

You go google!!!!! Show them who's boss!!!!

[T-man]

This sucks, I have a feeling YouTube will end up going down like Napster did after the corporate giants realized that they didn't come up with the idea first.

Apparently the company that owns practically every billboard in the country, not to mention Paramount, Dream Works, Republic Pictures, MTV films, Nickelodeon Movies, Go Fish Pictures, Comedy Central, Logo, BET, Atom Films, Addicting Games, Game Trailers, MTVN International, MTV TR3S, Parents Connect, Quizilla, Rhapsody, Shockwave, VH1 Classic, VH1 Soul, Virtual Worlds, Filmed Entertainment, Spike, TV Land, Nick at Night, Nickelodeon, Noggin, The N, Nick Jr., TeenNick, MTV, VH1, MTV2, CMT, MHD, DreamWorks Television, Xfire, Harmonix, Game Trailers, Neopets, and Screwattack was really suffering because a few kids wanted to bring up a clip of South Park on the internet without sitting through crappy ads that are bringing Viacom their revenue.

And the nerve of the b@$#ards trying to weasel their source code out of the deal.

[Speculation]

I find it interesting that this Stanton fellow finds "speculation" in everything IT related. In response to concerns by Google, that turning over IP addresses would violate privacy rights of computer users, the Stanton said that was "speculative." Really? I mean wow! IPs are not definitive enough?

I think this old fellow has a poor understanding of IT and will swallow any general scoop provided by Viacom. Another reason why we need more patent attorneys/judges in practice. It would help ensure the integrity of jurisprudence in this area of law. We are not dealing with specific instance of science. These issues are of monumental proportions and need to be addressed with much more care.

Just think of the million, maybe billions, of people this could have an affect on. Too speculative? Really? Sounds like a cliche to blur the true lack of understanding.

[perry]

Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.

griddick@imageline2.com

this ceo doesnt get it. neither do the other weasels.
people post these video snipits because they love the show....
when people see how great these shows are they tune them in on tv.
these creatures are attacking their own fans.
what is wrong with them.
I am going to make sure now that viacom programs are not watched in my home any more.
viacom.....your fired.......you idiots

I don't know. I seem to find the whole "we steal because we care" argument kind of, well childish. I mean seriously. From how you make it out it seems like the companies should be thanking people for taking the work they've spent a lot of time and money on without permission and posting it somewhere else. If you like something, you go and write up a good review, and encourage people to go watch or look at the actual thing, not just go and upload a low quality mock-up of it for all to see because you're showing your love of the thing. And furthermore Youtube does ads just as much. So it's basically do you pay the ones who actually made the thing, or just some third party affiliate?

Though don't get me wrong. I don't think that Viacom should really need to have the personal information of all users because ultimately it doesn't actually help their case and is actually violating the recent congressional law that specifically prohibits the transfer of end-users personal information. But I do feel that Viacom is justified in wanting compensation if it turns out that Youtube/Google are not doing their part fully enough to try and remove any copy-written material as soon as possible.