YouTube Must Give All User Histories To Viacom

psyopper writes "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. Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as 'speculative' and ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four terabyte hard drives." Update: 07/03 18:05 GMT by T : Brian Aker, now of MySQL but long ago Slashdot's "database thug," writes a journal entry on how companies could intelligently treat such potentially sensitive user data.

Tagged "fuckviacom"

[courseofhumanevents (1168415)]

Another company to purposely avoid.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[joaommp (685612)]

Google is the cash cow for lawsuits now. I better jump on that wagon too.

We could solve this problem.

[symbolset (646467)]

Abolish copyright. End the insanity.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[WingedHorse (1308431)]

Some of us don't have a chance to do such decisions.

I live in Finland so Viacom doesn't affect here. Still, Google is giving them all the records of my personal video watching too.

Some might say "So what, nothing personal on youtube..." but for some of us there is. A lot of information about my friends, what kind of videos I watch, etc. are stuff that I don't want any third parties to know, really.

I think I don't quite yet need to wait for my mother to ask

Why did you get a "It seems you have been watching slash videos, would you be interested in these magazines..." mail?

but it won't be far away if this kind of stuff gets more common.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[by Anonymous Coward]

Quite frankly, if you consider that information private, you shouldn't be using YouTube, or most other Google services. Google is known for logging everything and keeping the logs for a long time, and they're not doing it to have logs when they're sued for them. And it's not just Google. YouTube, Blogger, Flickr, MySpace, Facebook and all the other services are essentially data generation facilities which use the primary function as bait. You could post your own flash videos on your own web site. Everything you need for that is freely available. But you don't, because you don't actually care about your privacy and a distributed web structure, so quit whining.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[by Anonymous Coward]

Your mistake isn't not to trust Viacom, your mistake is to trust Google. You're exhibiting the "nobody ever got fired for buying (IBM|Microsoft)" attitude. Google's interests may be aligned with your interests at the moment, but there's no guarantee that it will stay this way. Remove the "do no evil" facade and you'll see that it's just another global corporation looking for ways to capitalize on its assets.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[sm62704 (957197)]

Another company to purposely avoid

How? I don't buy stuff from Viacom, the TV stations do. As I don't watch much TV anyway my participation in a boycott isn't going to help any.

That organized RIAA boycott sure helped. The four foreign-owned record labels ignore it, and all losses it causes are attributed to piracy.

At first I thought "somebody needs to start blowing shit up" but then I realized that no matter what we do, it will be useless at best and probably counterproductive.

Now, I haven't RTFA (yet) but the summary sounds like they're going after people who watch YouTube videos. How in the hell am I supposed to know the copyright owner doesn't want it seen? Not wanting your video seen is as stupid as not wanting your music heard.

Is Hollywood that scared of Ster Wreck?

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[sm62704 (957197)]

OK, I'm back. There's no way to say it nice, so I'll not mince words - the summary is inflamatory garbage. TFA says

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.

It doesn't say why Viacom needs user names; maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but TFA is pretty light on details too, and since IANAL reading the ruling [wired.com] won't do me much more good than a lawyer reading uncommented source code.

TFA says the EFF is getting involved [eff.org].

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[LilBlackDemon (604917)]

Thank you for pointing this out. Google does face additional liability if most videos are copyrighted material, and Viacom would likely be vindicated. That said, there's no reason to request usernames, IP addresses, etc., unless they were to go after the individual viewers. If they requested the IP/username for those who uploaded the protected works, however, that would make some sense.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658)]

Google could run a simple select * or equivalent, changing each name to a guid of some kind. This would allow analysis of all users, per user, if necessary (which is doubtful anyway), without revealing any identifying info.

Worse, this also reveals a trade secret -- Google can (and probably is) datamining to find what users actually choose to watch, which I'm sure Viacom wants to get their hands on.

Think about what that data would be worth for creating new programs. This has stupidity and scam written all over it.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[penguinbrat (711309)]

I read through that PDF and the impression I got was that Viacom is on a major full blown witch hunt for EVERYONE that has watched an 'illegal' video, and even wants to go after advertisers advertising while the said video is playing - and calls each one of them (us?) defendants, I can only assume that if your calling someone a defendant (that isn't one) that your planning to be the plantif against them someday...

They even go as far as saying that if the user comments say it's infringing and you watch it, you "KNEW" it was illegal and likewise they deserve the right to the information about you.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[Kirth (183)]

You'd better tagged it "fuckjudgelouislstanton". Because that bloody asshole violates every viewers privacy worldwide. Of course viacom wants this data, companies are not "nice", and if they think they can get away with it, they will do it. But this judge is a fucking catastrophe for allowing them to rape the viewers privacy.

And of course, it's entirely illegal to demand google to turn over the records of non-US viewers to viacom, due to much harder privacy-laws everywhere else.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[mikael (484)]

The domain information for the US court system is:

United State District Court
Southern District of New York
http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/index.php [uscourts.gov]
207.41.15.28 [dnsstuff.com]

Country IP Range: 207.40.0.0 to 207.43.255.255

It should be fun finding out what Youtube videos, the court system have been viewing...

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[SQLGuru (980662)]

I wonder if New York Country Lawyer would file something on my behalf to exclude my data from inclusion. I don't believe that I've watched anything that is Viacom owned (mostly parody and how-to videos), so I wouldn't really care if they found out who I was through that filing (but as a John Doe would be even better). If the scope was limited to only stuff owned by them, that's one thing, but for any YouTube video, screw them.

Layne

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[Pojut (1027544)]

One of my good friends says he loves to eat chicken omlettes, because he is able to eat two generations of a family at once.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[Dolohov (114209)]

Yeah, but Google is the one company that doesn't have much excuse to do things the "standard" way. A company like that scrutinizes everything that's logged, because even something that only writes a couple bytes for every user generates gigabytes of data every year. If they log IP addresses, it's because they want to log IP addresses, not because they didn't bother to change a default config.

Re:Tagged "fuckviacom"

[erlando (88533)]

This is just as much reason to avoid Google, or any company that keeps any kind of logs of your behavior.

And yet you are posting on Slashdot...

How far should discovery go?

[jez9999 (618189)]

Presumably, legal discovery is usually limited to the domain in which the lawsuit is operating. In a case like this, is it really appropriate for Google to provide such vast quantities of information, 99.9% of which is almost certainly irrelevant to the case? Shouldn't there be an appeals process Google can use that basically says "that judge doesn't know what (s)he's talking about, Viacom don't need this information"?

Viacom's reasoning for this information

[Reality Master 201 (578873)]

They're arguing that YouTube gets more viewership from copyrighted materials than non-copyrighted stuff, and they want the viewer logs to prove that. Then they'll go after Google and others for more money because they're profiting more from it.

I'm not saying that I agree with decision (I don't), but it's not like it's entirely unmotiviated.

On the other hand, I think people really need to start showing up outside the homes of the various lawyers, judges, and corporate executives involved and protest this kind of bullshit. They need to be followed into public places and shouted at about their behavior.

Re:Viacom's reasoning for this information

[mysidia (191772)]

In other news... Slashdot ordered to hand over the IP addresses and usernames and list of comments posted by every individual to read the "YouTube Must Give All User Histories To Viacom" thread on slashdot, including the identities of all "anonymous coward" viewers and posters, and their ip addresses.

CmdrTaco protested that the action would violate reader privacy, but the court dismissed it as mere speculation.

It seems Xyz Co. insisted that most of Slashdots' profits came from participants sparking illegal protests.

Re:Viacom's reasoning for this information

[SpcCowboy (1303133)]

The issue is not so much that they want the viewing logs to prove their argument. Anyone sufficiently motivated could study that since YouTube posts the number of views for each video on the site. The bigger issue is acquiring the names and IP addresses for everyone along with the view numbers. I fail to see how having that information is relevant to their case.

Re:Viacom's reasoning for this information

[EMCEngineer (1155139)]

Yeah, but shouting at them doesn't work that well. I mean, who is going to stand around the whole time while I shout, "This guy's corporation is violating your personal privacy, subverting the courts into a money making operation instead of a justice system, twisting laws to suit his own needs, bribing members of congress with contributions to their campaigns or charities, harming innovation with restrictive IP laws, violating anti-trust laws via industry groups, and he's also badly dressed."

Really, the problem with protesting any of this is threefold:
1 - the problem is poorly understood by the general public
2 - protestors are starting to be ignored as whackos
3 - even if you can get the point across and have people understand why this is a problem, they will be apathetic

Re:Viacom's reasoning for this information

[afidel (530433)]

So, WhyTF do they need usernames and IP's? The popularity of a clip has NOTHING to do with WHO viewed it, simply how MANY people viewed it. Asking for usernames simply means they are either out to sue individuals or they want the information for profiling purposes which has nada to do with the lawsuit and so should not be allowed in discovery.

Re:Viacom's reasoning for this information

[elrous0 (869638)]

And do you honestly think this is ALL they will use this information for? The marketing data value alone of those drives has to be worth well in the millions of dollars (if not billions). And that doesn't count the lawsuit value (they now have IP information on every person who has ever watched a copyrighted video on Youtube, after all)--which could put the data's value *well* into the billions.
.
In other words, an ignorant judge just handed them a cache of data worth way more than anything they could have gotten from an actual win (and has compromised the personal data of millions of completely innocent people to Viacom's market research department in the process)

Re:How far should discovery go?

[Yvanhoe (564877)]

Just provide it as is the custom in trial : on paper

Then blame Viacom on the sudden disappearance of the Amazonian forest.

Re:How far should discovery go?

[KillerBob (217953)]

Funny... but also insightful. As much of an environmentalist as I am (and I am), I'd say give it to them on paper. Maybe compromise, on 100% post-consumer fibre paper.... They want reams and reams of information that they don't really have a right to, and a judge is going along with it, so give it to them. In a format that will take them a decade to sift through, by which time it won't be relevant any more.

Um.. uh... er....

[tgd (2822)]

That must've been a hacker who got onto my computer who was searching for "bunny", "kitties", "puppies" and "babies".

I only search for "fire", "car crashes", "backyard wrestling" and "boobs".

*grunt*

>.>

Anti-competitive ?

[bytesex (112972)]

Isn't there some law that, unless you are a convicted monopolist, you can't be expected to help the competition ? I'm sure Viacom will do nothing with this data to help its own advertising business, no sirree.

What I don't understand...

[kidgenius (704962)]

Why would a company keep all of that information, especially when they know there is a high degree of certainty that they will be involved in some legal troubles later. Keeping this information is just asking for trouble. There probably are a few ways they use it, but it could easily be done without needing to keep a history. View counts, for instance, could just be incremented, and immediately the information about who viewed it could be thrown out. What about all of the related videos? Just create those links and throw out the information about the individuals that clicked between videos? It just doesn't make sense that when you will be offering a service that could come back to bit you in the rear, why would you keep information that could potentially show that you are doing something in a gray-area?

Re:What I don't understand...

[Bandman (86149)]

Ah, but they they couldn't suggest videos to you. After all, how would you find more midget porn and pirated My Little Ponies episodes if they didn't suggest content for you?

Re:What I don't understand...

[kidgenius (704962)]

Well...as disturbing as that is (midget porn), you've got a good point about recommendations. I know this is "evil", but why not keep a cookie on the user's computer that contains all that information. The site could call it up when you login. If a person doesn't store it, or deletes their cookies, that data is lost. Oh well, but it would release google having to give out information that could be used against it.

Anonymize

[|DeN|niS (58325)]

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.

So anonymize the data. Ask your friendly local CS student for instructions. You can get all your statistics from that.

Oh, that isn't actually the reason you want the data? Yeah, thought so. DIAF

Re:Anonymize

[Zero__Kelvin (151819)]

It was breakable in the case you cite due to the fact they had acces to another set of data (imbd website IIRC) without anonymous users, and they could cross reference with that. This is a different scenario entirely.

I'm going to be rich

[Erie Ed (1254426)]

Now that they gave out my private information to another company without my consent i can now sue google and become rich...I pitty the suckers that bought stock in google.

Protective Order

[John Hasler (414242)]

The users need to intervene as a class and request a protective order. They probably can't get the subpoena quashed but they probably can get the judge to limit what Viacom can do with the data and who can see it. They should ask him to limit access to the data to outside experts sworn to secrecy.

Re:Protective Order

[by Anonymous Coward]

Here are some details about the Hon. Louis L Stanton:

http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/judge_info.php?id=31 [uscourts.gov]

It provides some ways to contact him (including a phone number) for those who might want to share their displeasure over his ruling.

Re:Protective Order

[by Anonymous Coward]

I called the chambers and left a message with the woman who answered the phone. She seemed genuinely annoyed today so perhaps she is taking several messages about the issue. Although I could be wrong.

Why..

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why would Google even keep this info. We seriously need to learn to stop tracking this kind of stuff. It's like the Patriot act and libraries. When the act passed and libraries found out that checkout records of their users could be used in court most libraries simply stopped keeping a record of them. Companies like Google need to start doing the same.

So the judge wants google to violate copyright ...

[trolltalk.com (1108067)]

The order also requires Google to turn over copies of all videos that it has taken down for any reason.

So, if google has taken down a video from some non-viacom entity, for any reason, viacom gets a copy, in violation of the original owners' copyrights?

Also, I wonder if google had to take down any kiddie porn vids ... seems we could get viacom for possessing child porn.

So this is the future of civil lawsuits...

[liquiddark (719647)]

Who needs to win cases when you can receive millions of dollars in data simply by going through discovery proceedings?

All of us

[Rinisari (521266)]

Every single user of the Internet should be OUTRAGED about this judge's neglect of basic privacy statutes. I dispatched an email to YouTube about this order, urging them to fight it with all their power.

This is breaking european law.

[terminal.dk (102718)]

This is breaking european law. It is personal data (a log file with IP addresses is). So I really hope that Google do not have that sort of data in the US.

I will be reporting this to the danish data privacy agency. I suggest every other euopean reader here also contacts their local data privacy agency, or some EU institutuion.

Viaccom Brands to avoid

[IronWilliamCash (1078065)]

Here's the list of all the brands you now want to avoid because Viacom is being a bitch.

media networks,bet networks,bet,bet j,mtv networks, atomfilms, addictinggames, cmt, comedy central, gametrailers, harmonix, logo, mtv, mtv2, mtvn international, mtvu, mtv tr3s, neopets, nickelodeon - nick jr., nick at nite, noggin, parentsconnect, quizilla, rhapsody, shockwave, spike tv, the n, tv land, vh1, vh1 classic, vh1 soul, virtual worlds, xfire, filmed entertainment, paramount pictures corp, paramount pictures, dreamworks studios, paramount vantage, mtv films, nickelodeon movies, home entertainment, global reach, brand index

File back.

[SloWave (52801)]

Anyone have some boilerplate forms and step by step instructions to file the necessary legal objections to this? I would sure do it and I'll bet enough other people would to keep the court busy just reading the stuff for quite a while.

No matter who wins, it's us that are screwed?

[GreyyGuy (91753)]

Why do companies keep collecting every bit of data they can like this? Why does Google need to know the user name of the person watching the videos? Even the IP address is questionable. If they want to track people artificially inflating their views, wouldn't it be simple to keep one day's worth of views by IP address? What value do they get from keeping all the viewing history?

Meanwhile, Viacom gets user names, IP addresses, and the list of every video watched. If they are smart, they will realize this is way better then any survey or Nelson rating they ever get. And they got it nearly for free. You can be certain that other companies will be very interested in this data too. Can they just give Viacom a call and get it? Did the court put any restraints on Viacom sharing this data?

I hope you haven't watched anything on YouTube you don't want to be contacted about. Now excuse me while I go log out of my account. I don't think I've watched anything I don't want shared, but at the same time I would rather not risk having someone else come through and make decisions about me based on my random viewing habits.

The legal term is "fishing expedition"

[by Anonymous Coward]

IAAL.

When someone asks for discovery outside any reasonable boundry, attorneys refer to it as a "fishing expedition". Here, they just want to see the user patterns, so that they can do a stat analysis and figure out new ways to handicap a service they don't control.

The overarching reason for all of this litigation is only secondarily about copyright. The primary reason is so that they can learn and when they ask the "series of tubes" know-little (but bought and paid for) congress for son of DMCA they know how to hamstring.

While the Viacoms and Sonys of the world don't like the internet and can't kill it, they can try to hobble it at every turn. This, HDCP, etc are all part of one grand scheme to control the pipeline. "child porn" is the excuse to filter at the ISP......

Think of 1978....they controlled your tv, and that's the way they liked it. That is the ideal.

When did our judges lose contact with reality ?

[mbone (558574)]

Although Google argued that turning over the data would invade its users' privacy, the judge's ruling (.pdf) described that argument as "speculative"

This must be some new use of the word "speculative" with which I am unfamiliar.

How's the water Mr. Frog?

[GameboyRMH (1153867)]

Still not too hot?

You shouldn't underestimate the damage a large corporation can do with private data. Most of them are bestest friends forever with the government, and of those who aren't, few of them will stand up to the government. I'd say that if Viacom has this info it's as good as in US gov. hands.

Re:Guh..?

[4e617474 (945414)]

I think GP is wanting to know why Viacom needs to know who watched, when posting the copyrighted content is more unambiguously actionable. FTA:

Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos

When the Supreme Court ruled on Grokster, they considered that Grokster knew that the service would be used overwhelmingly for illegal files, and that legal files wouldn't account for enough traffic to make the whole thing worthwhile/profitable. Illegal activity may not have been integral to the technical model of what they were doing, but it was integral to the business model. It looks like they're going to try to make the case that Google knew that copyrighted material was going to be essential to driving enough traffic to the site to make it a credible medium. That would make their participation in the infringement pretty willful.

Also possibly unconstitutional...?

[Alaren (682568)]

The U.S. Constitution does not necessarily guarantee a right to privacy, but IIRC the California Constitution does, as do the constitutions of many other states and countries where affected users reside.

In other words, calling this "speculative" seems awfully foolish on the judge's part. Google should be able to provide Viacom with the information they need (popularity of the videos) without furnishing IP addresses and the like and violating their customers' constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I am in law school. My feeling is that this ruling should be relatively easy to overcome. In a sane world, anyhow.