Judge Protects YouTube’s Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Judge Protects YouTube’s Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/03/judge-protects-youtubes-source-code-throws-users-to-the-wolves/
7 comments
Anyone disagree that this is a good reason to stop using Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo Mail/Google Docs/etc?
It's a good reason to remember that you don't have any privacy when using other people's servers.
It's a good reason to remember that you don't have any privacy when using other people's servers.
The problem is with the law and the legal system. Not using Gmail, etc won't fix that problem. If you think your home computer is somehow safe, you are wrong.
Instead of being pissed at the judge, people should be pissed at youtube/google for actually keeping track of what videos every single user/ip watched. Just goes to show that Google is most likely tracking every single thing you do online
Here is a staggering list of items Google definitely tracks:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-evil-side-of-google-exploring...
When I look under Medical Records and think of cross referencing potential I grow a little concerned.
When I look under Medical Records and think of cross referencing potential I grow a little concerned.
Why are people so afraid of their medical records leaking out? Honestly, I'm more concerned about my YouTube viewing history than my drug allergies.
You sound as if you are more concerned about your YouTube history because you have more to hide there than in your medical history. Surely you can imagine people for whom the opposite is true -- where some otherwise innocuous medical fact would hurt them if made public?
...Like people who adopted but don't want their kids to know, people who have recovered from cancer, people with mental conditions, people treated for STDs, people with sex changes, people who have had (even a false-) positive HIV test, people with a history of drug abuse, people who have had abortions, etc. Some reasons are just embarrassing, some may get you turned down from a job, some are blackmail material that could end a marriage or political career.
...Like people who adopted but don't want their kids to know, people who have recovered from cancer, people with mental conditions, people treated for STDs, people with sex changes, people who have had (even a false-) positive HIV test, people with a history of drug abuse, people who have had abortions, etc. Some reasons are just embarrassing, some may get you turned down from a job, some are blackmail material that could end a marriage or political career.
some may get you turned down from a job
This is not something I worry about. If someone won't hire you because of a medical condition, you didn't want to work for them anyway. Better to find that out before you're entrenched.
some are blackmail material that could end a marriage or political career
Why keep records of things you don't want people to know about?
This is not something I worry about. If someone won't hire you because of a medical condition, you didn't want to work for them anyway. Better to find that out before you're entrenched.
some are blackmail material that could end a marriage or political career
Why keep records of things you don't want people to know about?
This is not something I worry about. If someone won't hire you because of a medical condition, you didn't want to work for them anyway. Better to find that out before you're entrenched.
Maybe, maybe not. The machinations of hiring are not necessarily representative of the rest of the work environment. And if a person with a politically unpopular medical condition gets turned down from a job, they won't know the reason. They're unlikely to say "Thank goodness I didn't get hired." -- more likely: "I wonder if my condition had any influence on the decision." These people would be much happier with greater confidentiality.
Why keep records of things you don't want people to know about?
In case they are medically relevant. It's not clear from the Google summary whether the patient has editorial control over the contents of their medical records, but it's not hard to imagine a service where they do not -- no doctor wants a patient to be able to remove notes on drug dependency issues from their file. Lists of operations and medications are medically relevant and potentially embarrassing; even something as simple as a list of vaccinations can tell you where a person grew up, which could be a politically sensitive issue.
Maybe, maybe not. The machinations of hiring are not necessarily representative of the rest of the work environment. And if a person with a politically unpopular medical condition gets turned down from a job, they won't know the reason. They're unlikely to say "Thank goodness I didn't get hired." -- more likely: "I wonder if my condition had any influence on the decision." These people would be much happier with greater confidentiality.
Why keep records of things you don't want people to know about?
In case they are medically relevant. It's not clear from the Google summary whether the patient has editorial control over the contents of their medical records, but it's not hard to imagine a service where they do not -- no doctor wants a patient to be able to remove notes on drug dependency issues from their file. Lists of operations and medications are medically relevant and potentially embarrassing; even something as simple as a list of vaccinations can tell you where a person grew up, which could be a politically sensitive issue.
That may be so, but this is still just a terrible, terrible ruling. If the linked article is correct, it's the entire surfing habits of every youtube user, ever. A list of users who watched the Viacom videos in question should clearly be discoverable? This? It's a disaster.
IANAL, obviously, but I have to believe there will be some way to appeal this order and get it sanified, no?
IANAL, obviously, but I have to believe there will be some way to appeal this order and get it sanified, no?
"And Google simply cannot hand this data over without facing a class action lawsuit of staggering proportions."
Is it true, that a company could be hold liable for things they do because a court said they have to?
Is it true, that a company could be hold liable for things they do because a court said they have to?
Watch "The Insider." A key element of the trial was the employer's insistence that testifying under subpoena was still a violation of the non-disclosure agreement.
Not good.
I understand and respect Viacom's need to protect their copyright, everyone should have the right to be able to profit out of their intellectual property - but this hard hitting approach is over the top.
All this action does is promote a virtual 'arms race' when it comes too copyright violation.
The media companies shut down Napster early on in the game and in the process, opened a pandoras box. Better technologies have emerged with every subsequent shutdown.
At least with Napster they could have contained the problem, but instead are just shooting themselves in the foot.
I guess this is the price they pay for their heavy handed approach.
I understand and respect Viacom's need to protect their copyright, everyone should have the right to be able to profit out of their intellectual property - but this hard hitting approach is over the top.
All this action does is promote a virtual 'arms race' when it comes too copyright violation.
The media companies shut down Napster early on in the game and in the process, opened a pandoras box. Better technologies have emerged with every subsequent shutdown.
At least with Napster they could have contained the problem, but instead are just shooting themselves in the foot.
I guess this is the price they pay for their heavy handed approach.
YouTube's business model:
1. Get venture capital
2. Get popular by distributing copyrighted content on massive scale.
3. Don't remove copyrighted content when asked to by holder.
4. Get more venture capital
5. Attract attention from large copyright holders. Remove their content, but only by explicit request. Know that the same content will be uploaded the day after you remove it.
6. Keep growing by distributing copyrighted content.
7. Get bought for an insane amount by Google
8. Stay a seperate legal entity because uh... you know. The whole business model is shady.
Makes perfect sense to go after the users. After all, they don't have VC money to defend themselves with.
1. Get venture capital
2. Get popular by distributing copyrighted content on massive scale.
3. Don't remove copyrighted content when asked to by holder.
4. Get more venture capital
5. Attract attention from large copyright holders. Remove their content, but only by explicit request. Know that the same content will be uploaded the day after you remove it.
6. Keep growing by distributing copyrighted content.
7. Get bought for an insane amount by Google
8. Stay a seperate legal entity because uh... you know. The whole business model is shady.
Makes perfect sense to go after the users. After all, they don't have VC money to defend themselves with.
9. YouTube goes out of business.
10. People pirate TV clips somewhere else.
11. Wait, Google wasn't the problem here.
Makes perfect sense to go after the users. After all, they don't have VC money to defend themselves with.
Considering the FBI didn't get very far prosecuting people who viewed a (fake) child porn site, I doubt millions of people will be sued for perhaps viewing 10 minutes of a TV show. Especially since the TV show was being broadcast through everyone's brains anyway.
10. People pirate TV clips somewhere else.
11. Wait, Google wasn't the problem here.
Makes perfect sense to go after the users. After all, they don't have VC money to defend themselves with.
Considering the FBI didn't get very far prosecuting people who viewed a (fake) child porn site, I doubt millions of people will be sued for perhaps viewing 10 minutes of a TV show. Especially since the TV show was being broadcast through everyone's brains anyway.
There is a surprisingly large amount of copyrighted content on YouTube and Google Video.
If I search for something, and find it, and watch it once, am I really the one they should be going after??
After all, Google is the one with the BILLIONS of dollars.. and they are the ones hosting the content to begin with.
Or is this just a case where a big corporation like Viacom is going to try to go after a bunch of nobodys like me because it is easier to scare us with big lawsuits and the threat of owing them hundreds of thousands of dollars.. all because I watched a couple clips of Jon Stewart on YouTube?
If I search for something, and find it, and watch it once, am I really the one they should be going after??
After all, Google is the one with the BILLIONS of dollars.. and they are the ones hosting the content to begin with.
Or is this just a case where a big corporation like Viacom is going to try to go after a bunch of nobodys like me because it is easier to scare us with big lawsuits and the threat of owing them hundreds of thousands of dollars.. all because I watched a couple clips of Jon Stewart on YouTube?
I think lawsuits against viewers is purely speculation by TechCrunch. IANAL, but I think pinning a copyright violation on a viewer would be very difficult, because the viewer is in a poor position to know the legality of a given clip -- especially prior to downloading it -- which implies that the uploader, not the downloader, is responsible for any violation. I'd guess this is why to date the RIAA and MPAA have only gone after P2P uploaders and BitTorrent users (where each user is both an uploader and downloader).
Just think... if merely clicking on a link were a copyright violation, Rick Astley would be a billionaire. :)
Just think... if merely clicking on a link were a copyright violation, Rick Astley would be a billionaire. :)
I agree that it is a stretch, but so is chasing down folks that may or may not have downloaded one movie from BitTorrent. http://www.shawnhogan.com/2005/11/loeb-and-loeb-mpaa-extorti...
Obviously the RIAA and MPAA etc. have a hard-on for this kind of thing right now. My hunch is that Viacom is trying to acquire as much data as it can to try to do the same thing.
Obviously the RIAA and MPAA etc. have a hard-on for this kind of thing right now. My hunch is that Viacom is trying to acquire as much data as it can to try to do the same thing.
What about the rest of us who were blessed with not being born in the USA? Should i be worried that some ninja cop will brake in my home and take my pc and sue me for watching youtube? It all sound ridiculous.
Yes, you should worry. Other countries are gutless followers of whatever the US tells them to do. If we make a law over here, you can bet the US will make you pass a similar law.
Actually they won't make us. Bulgarian politicians are known for being the biggest ass kissers in Europe so we will pass it before the USA just to look obedient. We had some copyright media debates a while ago when the police tried to arrest a few torrent uploaders and there were a lot of protests. A mother on tv said that her 13 year old sun is not a criminal because of the music he "steels" he just likes music and if you get something given to you for free, you don't buy. The result from the whole police action was an embarrassment for the government and a few torrent trackers either moving abroad or shutting down and 99% of the windows copies in Bulgaria are still illegal, and 99% of the music people listen to in their homes is still illegal and i only buy cd's from local bands(directly, that way i know where the money goes)* and i only use open source software(except my non free drivers and my flash plug-in) But im an exception, most people in the world are criminals.
*Yes i do own illegal mp3s, about 4000 of them, and about half of those you cant buy in a store(try finding an Argentinian hardcore punk band in a record store) I also have a few CC licensed mp3's but they are very few of those. And i have a handful of local cd's and a tape which i bought directly from the bands or from friends of the bands, and those CD's are limited editions, the bands cant afford more than 200-300 cd's and they resell them by hand. Many of the songs cant be found in the internet too, some fans are realy loyal. Guess when you don't sue them for ripping mp3's sending them to friends, the fans actually respect you. I know a lot of people who buy cd's because they want to help their favorite bands, they go to shows and buy shirts and other merchandise just to support the bands.
*Yes i do own illegal mp3s, about 4000 of them, and about half of those you cant buy in a store(try finding an Argentinian hardcore punk band in a record store) I also have a few CC licensed mp3's but they are very few of those. And i have a handful of local cd's and a tape which i bought directly from the bands or from friends of the bands, and those CD's are limited editions, the bands cant afford more than 200-300 cd's and they resell them by hand. Many of the songs cant be found in the internet too, some fans are realy loyal. Guess when you don't sue them for ripping mp3's sending them to friends, the fans actually respect you. I know a lot of people who buy cd's because they want to help their favorite bands, they go to shows and buy shirts and other merchandise just to support the bands.
"Google correctly argued that “the data should not be disclosed because of the users’ privacy concerns,” citing the VPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2710. However, the Court dismissed this argument with no analysis, stating “defendants cite no authority barring them from disclosing such information in civil discovery proceedings, and their privacy concerns are speculative.""
Anyone disagree that this is a good reason to stop using Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo Mail/Google Docs/etc?