digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at blog.wired.com

Youtube to hand over all user histories and IP addresses!

blog.wired.com — Due to a recent judge ruling, google will be forced to turn over every record of ever video watched by youtube users, including user's names, and IP addresses to viacom.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Srcc, on 07/03/2008, -15/+1233Why does Viacom need all of this information to figure out whether or not a video is copyright? Why does the end user even come into the equation? This judge got it wrong. The people behind MTV, battle bots, and that Star Trek where Kirk kills god don't need our personal info.
    • Optimus, on 07/03/2008, -4/+102>>The people behind MTV, battle bots, and that Star Trek where Kirk kills god don't need our personal info

      That wasn't "God", that was a creature pretending to be God!

      "What does God need with a starship?"
      • eleete, on 07/03/2008, -1/+14He's into tech gadgets and it's a cool way to beam people up to the pearly gates.
      • userperson, on 07/03/2008, -2/+17Star Trek V was horrible!
      • geoff1210, on 07/03/2008, -13/+4So they ripped off stargate?
      • i208khonsu, on 07/03/2008, -11/+8I've got some news for you. That entitity you know as God is actually just a creature from outerspace.
      • colinmhayes, on 07/03/2008, -5/+8any episode basically implying that Jesus was a space alien is good in my book.

        You were talking about the episode with the ancient greek gods, right?
      • ayeroxor, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2"That entitity you know as God is actually just a creature from outerspace."

        That's amazing! I always thought "outer space" was two words!
      • PurpleDragon2, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Something I just submitted.

        Google ordered to violate Fed Video Privacy Protection Act

        groklaw.net — Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom
    • ElbertF, on 07/03/2008, -2/+63They'll sue you too if you ever watched a South Park episode on YouTube.
      • Aeomyr, on 07/03/2008, -5/+67They ain't suing me whether I have or not, I'll kick them in da NOOTZ
      • jmp478, on 07/03/2008, -4/+64They can't sue users for watching copyrighted videos...
      • deathsythe, on 07/03/2008, -45/+8Think again jmp478 - The crime is receiving the copyrighted content for your own use without actually paying it. (ie- Watching a copyrighted video)

      • Murdats, on 07/03/2008, -3/+25research again deathsythe, that isnt a crime.
      • userperson, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8Are There South Park Episodes on YouTube? Just clips. With South Park Zone and the Official site (assuming it works right) what would be the point? Though I supposed there probably used to be.
      • ColorBlind, on 07/03/2008, -3/+25So they are going to sue everyone in the world basically? Way to dig your own grave with a bulldozer...
      • Durrok, on 07/03/2008, -4/+11The reality is they can sue you for whatever they want jmp478. Now if it holds up in court is another thing entirely but the damage will already be done.
      • ooby, on 07/03/2008, -1/+26@deathsythe:

        The fact that Youtube complies with DMCA takedown notices implies that they remove videos posted in violation of copyrights. If a video is available on Youtube, it either means that it violates a copyright and someone hasn't DMCA'd it or that it's OK to watch.
        From a viewer's perspective, both situations are indistinguishable.
      • aigulf, on 07/03/2008, -1/+10@Durrok, "the damage will already be done."

        Not necessarily, assuming you win, you can probably counter-sue for lawyer fees. I think someone recently won a case against the RIAA for just that in a defeated Kazaa downloading case. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
      • i208khonsu, on 07/03/2008, -3/+19Unlike what the RIAA and MPAA would have you believe it is not illegeal to DOWNLOAD copyrighted content. It is only illegeal to UPLOAD said content.
      • championchap, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3Not happening.
        If it ever came to it I'd call Trey and Matt into the equation.

        They've stated before quite publicly that they don't care HOW the show is seen as long as we're watching it.
        I for one take that as - If you enjoy the show, download it if that's how you'd prefer to see it.

        With Trey and Matt on our sides the case wouldn't last 5 minutes.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3Under The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) - YouTube becomes a 'criminal tool' for illegal decoding of copyrighted content.

        So according to the DMCA, ALL YouTube viewers must be publicly executed at the carved stone alter of RIAA, their still beating hearts fed into Viacom's gaping maw.

      • bubba9999, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1I hate that Viacom owns Comedy Central. If it weren't for that, I would set them on fire and watch them burn.
      • remccain, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1need help?
    • kevbryant, on 07/03/2008, -1/+23They don't. They need it to prove damages.
      • Ryosen, on 07/03/2008, -3/+106Google should give it to them as a print-out.
      • ooby, on 07/03/2008, -0/+21Why does Viacom need viewer data of any videos of which I own the copyrights?
      • po43292, on 07/03/2008, -0/+40...a print-out on one sheet in 0.001 font in italics.
      • digitalhair, on 07/03/2008, -0/+12I wonder how much the ACLU has grown since this story broke... where can I sign up?
      • lintmonkey, on 07/03/2008, -3/+15Why does Google need to see everything that's been watched by all users ever? Why do these log files even exist?
      • masamunecyrus, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3The log files exist because Google is an advertising a search company, and statistics like those are very important to the way they run their business. The usernames are kept so they can accurately display ads towards what you appear to like based on your viewing habits, and the IP addresses are important for location purposes, such as to see which state likes what the most, what countries are watching what videos and the kind of ads to display on them, etc...

        Google has, up until now, fought very hard to keep those records to themselves and not give them over to third-parties. They didn't even give them up amongst government threats. Unfortunately, this judge has just changed that.
    • userperson, on 07/03/2008, -0/+14Perhaps they don't 'need' such information ... but since they are there anyway ...
    • mnocket, on 07/03/2008, -11/+9RTFA. It explains why Viacom wants the information!
      • clickwir, on 07/03/2008, -6/+44Why don't you just tell us instead of making us click.
      • Symbolism, on 07/03/2008, -4/+6dugg for intelligent retort to aforementioned jerk.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2It explains the lame excuse Viacom is using to attempt to illegally Wire Tap an entire nation, and most of the computer using people on Earth.

    • ivosilva, on 07/03/2008, -1/+34What about international users? wtf?
      • AROZ, on 07/03/2008, -0/+22What about dynamic IPs?
      • ukblacknight, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9@AROZ: I suppose they could contact the ISP and look up who had that IP at the date/time.
      • SuicideMouse, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Can they do that? To people in other countries?
      • Scynet, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6They can do it, the servers are in US and thus under US laws.
    • FutureGuy, on 07/03/2008, -4/+81Viacom will be Viacom, they can't help it. I think the more important question is why on earth does Google store "every record of ever video watched by youtube users (including IP addresses)" forever? That sounds a little "evil" to me.
      • TheTSArt, on 07/03/2008, -0/+13Yes Viacom can help it . Don't give them a pass on this.
      • Texadian, on 07/03/2008, -4/+1I could be TOTALLY wrong but aren't the companies required to keep records for a certain amount of time by law? I am only about 20% sure about this though.
      • westyvw, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Do you really need to ask this question? Google is an ADVERTISING service. These things like Gmail, Youtube, Search, are just gimmicks to get you to see adverts. And in order to have customers pay for the advertising, they need demographics, users data, etc. It would be shocking if they were not collecting and keeping this information. I am not saying as a for/against statement about google; its just the facts.

        BTW: You do realize that the same thing is going on here at Digg, or any other internet site. Logs are trivial........
      • mofw, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Umm logs are the way they get all that "demographics, users data, etc" for advertising you just mentioned. Not trivial at all.
    • Shogi, on 07/03/2008, -1/+41Why do they need user names and ip addresses when each video already tells you how many times it's been viewed?
      • HonoredMule, on 07/03/2008, -0/+17They demanded source code and database schema too.

        It sounds to me more like they want to make a knock off.
        Pirate is just the label applied to content owners/distributors that are less successful.
    • AIONutter, on 07/03/2008, -2/+99muahahahahaa...

      Well, if they check my account, they are going to get rick roll'd a lot...hahaa
    • Buzzpatrol, on 07/03/2008, -10/+25I hate to say this, but if Google hands this data over I will never again voluntarily use another Google product! "Don't Be Evil" already rimes so badly with their action in the Yahoo/Microsoft merger and the "Great wall of China" that I am ready to call shenanigans on the entire culture!
      • futureb, on 07/03/2008, -2/+20so you're saying that if they comply with an order of a federal judge that you won't use their products? google was sued here. google is fighting the lawsuit. google lost this ruling on discovery. what are they supposed to do? ignore it and lose the larger lawsuit? would you rather they turn this data over or lose the lawsuit and remove most of the content from youtube?
      • TheTSArt, on 07/03/2008, -1/+11So you won't use Google because they have to comply with the law?!

        Where is your outrage at Viacom and the judge? Jeez.
    • fattony80, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10They don't need this info to figure out if it is copyright or not.

      They simply want the info to prove that google gets more hits/visits/etc from copyright material than other crap. Google likes having the stuff on their sites, it promotes growth 'n' stuff.

      read the article again.
      • eviltandem, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10Still trying to figure out what that has to do with anything.

        The law seems pretty clear. As long as they respond to take-down requests, and they do, then they are not responsible for what people post. Period. That's what the DMCA says.

        Viacom can whine all they want, but I don't think they have a prayer of winning this.

        Even if every single thing Viacom says here is true, Google is still in the right. Google is following the law to the letter and spirit.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Bull, A summary statistics sheet would give Viacom that info.

        Attempting to grab the IP addresses, user names, email addresses, etc is a direct attack against the business - that much data has many, many uses for forecasting, marketing & sales.

        That data is very, very valuable, the judge might have well told YouTube to simply
        turn over $ 400 Billion dollars to Viacom
        because Viacom said 'we want your money.'


        5 minute youtube video coming up: "You Suck at Justice"
        like the ''You Suck at Photoshop'' video- explaining to google and Youtube why they can't let Viacom push them around...
    • homercles337, on 07/03/2008, -11/+8Sure, they dont need it, but this is one battle between personal freedom and corporate consumerism. We have had 7 years of Corporatism under the Neocons. Do we really need another 4 with McSame?
      • kaelyiesta, on 07/03/2008, -1/+57 years? Try nearly a century.
      • ComradeGoby, on 07/03/2008, -5/+19Please stfu up, if you think Obama is going to be any better in this area you are deluding yourself.

      • CiXeL, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2ComradeGoby, if it isnt, expect revolution. the people are tired of this and many are reaching their wit's end. when theyre jobless, homeless, and the country continues to march in the wrong direction you know bad things are coming and youll start to see them organize. push people far enough and they snap.
        as long as they can keep people comfortable they wont rebel, but take away that comfort and you unleash the dragon.
      • Zalyster, on 07/03/2008, -3/+5*coughronpaulcough*
      • LeeSoong, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Obama wants to raise taxes to take your paycheck from you and give it to churches.

        Get rid of science, take people's money at gun point and give it to the fairy man living in the sky.

        (Very special Holy Men will take all that money and deposit it in the 'All - Maigh - Tay's' bank account in Switzerland and Off Shore accounts.)


        Maybe stealing taxes and paying off church bureaucrats will fix the 'conomy - just like toilet water on plants!

      • cpk121, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1@homercles337: Dugg down for unnecessary political reference. I already gag every time I see another of those ***** Huffington Post articles make the front page. Now I read the comments in a _tech story_ and you have to spew more political crap and throw in a gratuitous, cliched "insult" that uses McCain's name. Aren't we clever?

        We can't keep political news off of the front page and unfortunately, we can't even get rid of disreputable sites like the Huffington Post. However, many Digg users would appreciate it if you would stop polluting other stories with this *****. Thank you.
    • chaoswings, on 07/03/2008, -4/+13"Those requests were denied in whole, except that Google will have to turn over data about how often each private video has been watched and by how many persons."

      There is no need to worry the title is just sensationalist. They are only turning over stats. Also it does not look like they are after users but are instead after statistics to use against Google.
      • sinrtb, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9You missed the whole middle part of the article. You know where they said exactly what the title said. What you quoted was at the end and pertains to what Viacom asked for above and beyond what they already got.
    • sjeddie, on 07/03/2008, -7/+1"Those requests were denied in whole, except that Google will have to turn over data about how often each private video has been watched and by how many persons."

      oh phew! scared me for a second there
    • GreenAlien, on 07/03/2008, -0/+16"Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema."

      How can it be that one company can demand all user activities plus the things mentioned in the above quote from another company! They have no right to this information. If they want to determine trends there could be a third trusted company to sift through the data and give it to Viacom in aggregate. Or just have Google present it in aggregate themselves.

      Good luck with cloud computing Google. You can ***** off if you're going to hand over my data to other companies without putting up a long legal fight.
      • daverave999, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Copies of all videos marked private? They'll enjoy mine!
        Not very private though is it...
      • anothrnbdy, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Yeah, because this legal case just started today and hasn't actually been going on for a while. Oh wait, its actually the exact opposite of that.
      • Zalyster, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Taking their source code is stupid. If they just want it so they can tell if Google is actually doing much for the detection of copyright, well stfu and make your own code if you think you can do better. It's not that easy for a computer to tell if something is copyrighted ip or not, sorry guys. Better luck next time.
    • tito666, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4chaoswings, you are wrong, reread the 1st sentence or check BBC's story:
      "Google will have to turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses"

      (and remember many youtube accounts are tied to google accounts)

      The 'requests' that were denied in whole where these:
      'Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema.'

      Copies of all videos marked private? WTF is that?
      Youtube's source code?

      Google tried to resist using the DMCA, but the judge denied it, employing federal copyright law from 1976.
      • Zalyster, on 07/03/2008, -1/+31976, before teh Internet grew popular and people had personal computers...Huge relevancy there.
    • tito666, on 07/03/2008, -5/+2I wish Google would just settle this lawsuit. Take a stand on principle and say, fine Viacom, here's a billion, go away! I understand that the problem is establishing a precedence and having a bunch of others sue. But in the meantime, they could review the flaws they made in their legal case, set up technology or a third party service to avoid compromising their users' privacy, and hopefully, be assigned a more savvy and sanguine judge on the next case (pure luck, I know). Because right now, a very bad precedent is being set.

      As far as bad PR for Viacom goes, I checked MSNBC, Reuters, Bloomberg, CNN, ABC, FoxNews, BBC and CBS (lol!) news for this story (terms: 'youtube viacom google').
      Only BBC and Bloomberg had something about the ruling, and Bloomberg's title and tone was 'Viacom loses bid to view 'critical' Google, Youtube code'.

      Poor Viacom!

      Currently there is no bad PR, and tomorrow is the July 4th weekend, so once again, this will slip under the radar in the major news networks, so tell everyone you know!
      • anothrnbdy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Settling would set an even bigger precedent. Viacom will be spanked when this thing goes to court. At least, that's the only logical recourse in a sane world.
      • TheTSArt, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Fox News front page.

        "Your YouTube Views Revealed" and the opening sentence refers to Viacom as the "wolves."
      • tito666, on 07/03/2008, -1/+0no, if you settle, you do it out of the courts for an undisclosed sum.
        there would be no legal precedent.
        then you refine your approach and technology for the next round of vultures.

        I don't know why Google didn't try:
        1.) Google writes an open anonymizer for their logs
        2.) A disinterested third party (that Google & Viacom agree on)
        reviews code, gets logs, and runs code.
        3.) Third party gives anonymized logs to Viacom.
      • LeeSoong, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3I wish Google would buy viacom in a hostile take over then dissolve the assets piece by piece.

        Bye Bye Viacom !

        Hello googlecom !
      • barthrh, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2What flaws in their legal case? They haven't presented it yet. Everyone is gathering data to support their respective cases. You're suggesting capitulating before the fight even starts. Are you French?
    • jerrycurley, on 07/03/2008, -5/+0What prestigious law school didc you go to that makes you such an expert on the law in this case after reading an article?

      Or are you just some dumb ***** kid who thikn that you know everything on everything. Oh wait...you are on Digg. Of COURSE that is what you are.
    • tito666, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2hi jerrycurley,

      Actually, I attended the University of Michigan and am in my early 30s. The text from the ruling is out and I'd love to hear your opinion on its flaws and merits. Have a look and let me know:
      http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/viacom_yout ...

      I hope Google fights this tooth and nail. I'm no expert on the matter, but the only way out may be for Google to refuse to hand over the information, settle for cash, and regroup for the next suit. Google has a lot of cash. That's all I'm saying.
      • darkciti2, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Google should just say they lost the data.


        If it's good enough for the White House, it's good enough for Corporate America!
        /sarcasm
    • JoeHammer, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1If I get sued, that judge is screwed.
    • TimFrost, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Do viacom not know about the view counter on pages to check a bit easier on which is more popular rather than wanting my personal information?!

      Viacom are out of order and so is the judge for approving this.

      ***** 'em both!
    • scaaven2, on 07/03/2008, -1/+14Just deliver the 4 terabyte drives completely encrypted. They can't say the data isn't there.
      • annenk38, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Better yet, deliver it all in print. Let them sort it out
    • GassyTurd, on 07/03/2008, -11/+0Good Day,

      How are you today? I presume all is well with you and your family. I am pleased to enlighten you about my accomplishment in getting those funds with the mutual aid of a new associate from china who is an investor.

      Follow-up to your effort, honesty, audacity you showed at the course of the transaction, I want to compensate you and show my gratitude to you with the sum of US$1,200,000.00 (One Million Two Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) and I have authorized the GLOBAL SECURITY & INVESTMENT LTD where I deposited the fund to issue you an international certified bank draft cashable at your bank or transfer the fund to you through bank to bank wire transfer/electronic transfer method.

      Please contact the Remittance Department GLOBAL SECURITY & INVESTMENT LTD Dr. Suleiman Dako to facilitate the remittance of your fund:

      ATTN: Dr. Suleiman Dako
      Emil: dr_suleimandako01@live.com

      Meanwhile, to avoid unnecessary delays, please provide him with the information below so as to enable him confirm your rightful beneficiary and proceed with the transfer arrangement without any further obstruction:

      1. Full Name:
      2. Residential Address:
      3. Phone Number:
      4. Nationality:
      5. Country:

      I have already instructed the GLOBAL SECURITY & INVESTMENT LTD the reason for this payment and for easy recognition, please contact him and ask him to send you the total US$1,200,000.00 (One Million Two Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) which I kept for your recompense for all the past efforts and attempts to assist me in this matter.

      I appreciated your efforts at that time very much, so feel free and get in touch with the GLOBAL SECURITY & INVESTMENT LTD for your immediate payment.

      Finally, please do notify me instantaneously as soon as you confirm the payment in your selected method of payment to enable us share the joy once again after our distress at that time. However, I am extremely busy at the moment with my investment project; hence I directed the GLOBAL SECURITY & INVESTMENT LTD to smooth the progress of this transfer.

      Do have a pleasant day and God Bless.

      Yours sincerely,
      Mr. Williams.

      • cpk121, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1If I respond, will I get more spam shouts? Let's try it out, Diggers!
    • Gilgamesh73, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1The government works via the corporations to conceal blame. Don't believe me? Read: The Confessions of an Economic Hitman, or watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8.

      Very scary. This is why we need to scrutinize closely everything corporations do because the government has the ability to work through them, and which is why the governement caters to them moreso than We the People.
    • starmanjones, on 07/03/2008, -0/+12>Why does Viacom need all of this
      >information to figure out whether or not
      >a video is copyright? Why does the end
      >user even come into the equation? This
      >judge got it wrong.

      this is not about copyrights. its about civil rights. right now the old school brick and mortar businesses are teaming up with politics to secure control of information.

      the reality of 'controlling information' is a lot scarier than the it sounds.

      think of how many times something got outed via the internet. too many to name.

      think of how P2P has become the primary distribution channel for... everything.

      the GAO as much as said the last presidential election was corrupted. that makes 2 in a row. WMD and iraq? we wouldn't know much past what rumsfield offered us. AT&T selling us out? you'd only hear vague rumors.

      when all this got started we all thought that the word "pirate" was amusing. but it gave the old school interests and politicians an easy image to create stupid legislation to stop.

      this thing... the internet that we are in charge of by our shear numbers and the ability to move information instantly is a revolution like the creation of writing and the printing press but its bigger. it enables everyone that can find a terminal. there are many initiatives to find a way to put a terminal in the most remote places people live.

      yes its about copyrights. the laws need to be changed as we move into a new phase human society. the powers that be don't want to loose control of information. i beleive that access to information is a civil right. its a new world. i want the genius in the small remote village to be able to access information and use the knowledge to make everything better for everyone.

      knowledge must be free. thats what i know.

      the internet must allow free flow of information in any form.

      free people must be able to move around and talk without being tracked and data mined. those are things that need controlling.

      fighting this effort to is not a "pirate" cause. its "civil disobedience" in its purest form. civil rights in the 60's... is still an unfinished cause. free access to information is the piece that enables that cause to be realized. free access to information and free unmonitored flow of that information is a civil right. its a logical continuation of the same civil rights movements in the 60's that in hindsight seem such no brainers. this is a no brainer.

      there is no down side to free access of information. it elevates human societies. if the powers that be feel the need for copyrights then figure it out so that its acceptable to the world. making everyone criminals is unacceptable.

      in the U.S. the situation is approaching nuts. every computer anywhere... has unauthorized copyrighted material on it. it comes out of the factory that way. that email you sent your grandmother... had copyrighted material in it.

      if you are connected to the internet whether you like it or not you have unauthorized copyrighted material on your computer.

      the data stream to your house is being monitored.

      you can be arrested and disappear with no explanations for as long as the powers that be see fit.

      i feel like i am using bad judgement when i write things like this. the only danger i pose to society is what i write and the the fact that what i write is going to be available to anyone in the world with in seconds of pushing this button named... "Save Comment." civil disobedience concerning this issue feels like a duty.
    • diggingaround, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3I guess they are hunting people who are posting all those "9/11" and other "conspiracy" videos...
    • Gilgamesh73, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1The government can and has worked via corporations in the past to conceal blame, and no doubt still do, so this is definitely something to be concerned about. Regardless, I will not let this change my YT viewing habits though.

      Read: The Confessions of an Economic Hitman; or watch this for proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8. Perkins admits this pretty early into the video.
    • DarkHuntress, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7
      Tell them how you feel


      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
      • Marijuana, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1They don't give a *****. They'll most likely try to sell you anti-depressants.
    • Gilgamesh73, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1The government can and has worked via corporations in the past to conceal blame, and no doubt still do, so this is definitely something to be concerned about because YT is rife with 9/11 Truthers and anti-government videos. Regardless, I will not let this change my YT viewing habits though.

      For proof read the best-seller: The Confessions of an Economic Hitman; or watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8. Perkins admits this pretty early into the video.
    • pakakapa, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1the real question is: why the ***** does google store all that data forever?
      • sjl127, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Someone's paying them to. They're a convenient, legal, government proxy, as the feds can't do this (collect data), but google can as a private entity. They then turn around and sell the info. Just like Acxiom and others.
    • SIRBERUS, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1"as well as copies of YouTube parent Google’s advertisement database schema, and copies of all videos on the site marked “private.”

      Uh oh... they get all our naughty private vids.
    • moush, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1This is all about marketing, not so they can see what pirated data does. You guys are paranoid morons.
    • RoyalRabbit, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0I don't want my MTV!


      TechXiety's 'Top Ten List' - The PEOPLE'S Response To Viacom's Lawsuit Against YouTube Inc.
      http://www.techxiety.com/techxiety/2008/07/techxie ...
  • species, on 07/03/2008, -7/+462If you read the article it says that they want it to show that copyrighted material is more popular than user submitted videos. This is complete *****, but I guess not much we can do about it at this point.
    • vondrak, on 07/03/2008, -1/+170It that what the number of views counter is for?
    • Aeomyr, on 07/03/2008, -4/+436Isn't this just going to show Rick Astley as being more popular than anything at the moment?
      • tehknotte, on 07/03/2008, -0/+19This is actually a good movie plot for a film about how they re-hire Rick Astley to make a new album. Then he will become the new hit sensation for an unsuspecting generation.
      • Gutterpunk, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Yeah but the Rick Roll video is not a user submitted video, so it might actually help them say that copyrighted work is more popular...
      • Zalyster, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10@tehknotte:
        At the beginning of the movie, after the previews, Never Gonna Give You Up plays and then the movie ends. Super rickroll there.
      • championchap, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1At the moment?
        The rick roll died on April 1st.
      • GliTCH82, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Son of a bitch, all that's gonna do is make them think we want the '80s back. This could be a huge disaster.
    • antlerboy, on 07/03/2008, -2/+24unless people copyright video of their cats...
      • goblindegook, on 07/03/2008, -1/+45Copyright is automatic. As determined by the Berne Convention, people don't need to claim rights over their own creations (even if they're worthless cat videos).
      • spawnfree, on 07/03/2008, -8/+3worthless?
        check out that big, circular, bottomless pit you are standing next to.
      • Zalyster, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6So every video on Youtube is copyrighted? Prepare to sue...everyone...
      • Scynet, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1This explains who owns the videos on Youtube:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdcK6r7yk9Q
      • goblindegook, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Zalyster: Not necessarily, the owner is free to distribute his work however he likes (on YouTube, for example), release it into the public domain or copyright may simply expire. And if the work is next to worthless, what would be the point of suing exactly?
      • t0x2c, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1@goblindegook Ask Viacom that.
    • coolearl, on 07/03/2008, -2/+39Guinea Pig eating a banana disagrees with you Viacom!!!
    • Protuhj, on 07/03/2008, -1/+18All-time top video on YouTube: Evolution of Dance -- user created. A lot of the top videos on the website are music videos, I don't know if those fall into Viacom's realm or not.
      • Gutterpunk, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I think that they are trying to demonstrate that copyrighted (not necessarily owned by Viacom) is more popular than user submission, that YouTube wouldn't survive with user submissions only.
      • dn11, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2well viacom is simply wrong in that case. who the hell goes to youtube for copyrighted clips anymore? most often they are deleted right away. how will all this data mean anything to them? maybe they are issuing lots of take down notices for clips that have hundreds of thousands of views... but popular clips on youtube get millions of views per week. these guys are so out of touch it isn't even funny.
    • steviepunk, on 07/03/2008, -1/+17I don't see why usernames and IP addresses are relevant if they are only planning on proving that copyright material is more popular that user created material, as pointed out, the view count takes care of that.

      As for Evolution of Dance, I'm sure they'll try to use that as their case winner, it must have at least 10 pieces of copyrighted music in there....since they don't seem to think fair use actually applies to anything that would constitute a 'use'
      • Jookly, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5No, you are wrong. It is fine to use music for a video like that, it isn't ok to upload all your favorite songs to youtube however.
      • thaddeusj, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10I read the ruling. It sounds like they are getting usernames and IPs because they are in the database and Google isn't going to massage the data for them. Google complained about having to work the data and the judge ruled that if Viacom provides the storage Google is ordered to turn over the database. The judge did decide that Google wasn't responsible to making any sense out of the data for Viacom. There was little in the way of defense opposition to this.

        I almost wonder if Google was quiet about having to give over the raw data because they want Viacom to feel the enormity of getting any meaning out of it. Given that nobody who created the database is at Viacom's disposal and they have no interface to the data, this will be a hell of a task. And the more this case costs Viacom, the less it will seem worth it for the prize.
      • Seth024, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5So 4 TB of 0101011010001011101000100010...
        Figure it out Viacom.
    • retroroto, on 07/03/2008, -0/+18ALL YOUR VIDEO ARE BELONG TO US
      signed, Viacom
      OK its on then
    • bs0l, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8This is really lame.
    • mike17032, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2Chances are they are correct.

      Not that its a good excuse for giving them that info.
    • Jookly, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1How is that *****?
    • shibbyo, on 07/03/2008, -0/+28Youtube used to be all about watching old cartoons, sure, but it's become something bigger than all of that. It's about candid videos of stupid people getting hurt. It's about babies eating lemons. Cute girls who can finally force the whole world to pretend to care about what they have to say instead of just the boys at their high school. Ex-convicts savagely beating the hell out of each other out in the desert. Skaters being harassed by cops. Unwarranted tasings. And most importantly, pertinent clips of various liberal heroes owning Fox News so we can all laugh without having to actually sit down and watch it ourselves.

      Youtube is the best thing to ever happen to the internet.
    • Gilgamesh73, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1The government works via the corporations to conceal blame. Don't believe me? Read: The Confessions of an Economic Hitman, or watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8.

      Very scary. This is why we need to scrutinize closely everything corporations do because the government has the ability to work through them, and which is why the governement caters to them moreso than We the People.
    • dn11, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I ***** hate viacom. These guys are now living 2 years ago. Did youtube save all the logs for 2-3 years ago? Because no one on youtube gives a ***** about your content anymore Viacom.... anyway, youtube has exponentially more viewers now than they did when Jon Stewart clips reigned
    • LeeSoong, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5YouTube should claim trade secrets on the user data - that's Real Money right there.

      I demand Viacom's incorporation be declared null and void,
      and their assets sold off to pay for shoes for poor children.

      How about a class action lawsuit against Viacom - for violating the privacy of millions of YouTube viewers?

      I never granted viacom the right to ease drop on private information transfers between youtube and my PC. Neither did you or anyone else.

      This is yet another corporate grab at destroying civil liberties and attacking the Bill of Rights 1st Amendment freedom of speech.

      APPEAL.

      IF Viacom has a problem with 1 poster on YouTube,
      then Viacom must file charges against that 1 person,
      and follow through with that case, and every case - 1 person at a time.

      The Wholesale theft of information from YouTube by Viacom's anticompetitive and monopolistic practice denies each and every individual Due Process - for the ''innocent'' are being treated just as bad as the ''guilty''.

      It makes as much sense as to arrest a city, say the Whole population of Austin, Texas, and then let all the people sit in jail until they get around to maybe trying their individual cases.

      Viacom's data grab is just as stupid as violating the civil rights of over 600 people based off an anonymous false phone call, and then causing irreparable harm to over 100 children and their families.

      A smarter and higher court judge would overturn this nonsense and see it for what it is - Part of Viacom's ''Old World Media'' open attack against youtube and google's ''New World'' of interactive media.

      It's AT & T suing MCI all over again, trying to destroy competition and maintain a corporate empire at the expense of innovation and destruction of the growing internet economy.

      Disgusting Injustice.

      YouTube should take a cue from the Bush administration:
      "Oops, we lost all that data,
      Bob spilled Pepsi on the backup server."

    • RareSaturn, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Nothing we can do? How about a class-action against Viacom for privacy infringment?
    • sanriver12, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1AMERICA is failing !!!!!! you people suck for letting this happen
  • rdizzle, on 07/03/2008, -78/+13HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLY SHIIIIIIIIIAAAAAAAAAAA
  • MaxterICC, on 07/03/2008, -68/+7I'm betting google decides not to comply.
    • MikeFallopian, on 07/03/2008, -4/+19Google has a long and storied history of not giving a ***** about users' privacy.
      • MavRevMatt, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4And yet we all still use Google Search, Gmail, and who knows what else of their properties.
    • SimonTB, on 07/03/2008, -1/+13Of course they'll comply, you moron. When the court orders a giant company to do something, they do it unless they have powerful friends in the government.
      • k1down, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2If you have several billion dollars, Ben Franklin is your powerful friend in government...
        ....oh wait i forgot, you moron!
    • jabberwolf, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7They comply with China's request all the time!
    • Papajohn56, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Hahaha. I love how people think Google is the moral beacon of the internet. Stop worshipping a corporation you morons
    • diggrnumber1, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Google did in fact refuse to comply with the government's demand to hand over all their search records. I don't know if they ever did hand over the records, but they did refuse at first:

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and ...
  • rationalbeats, on 07/03/2008, -5/+2021Jesus, the fact that every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses is able to be handed over to a third party seems like a blatant violation of privacy.

    I don't like it one bit.
    • Gregd, on 07/03/2008, -14/+709I don't like it two bytes.
    • junkwheel, on 07/03/2008, -36/+6I don't like it one Patty Mayo.
    • toekneebullard, on 07/03/2008, -40/+11Hate to be the voice of reason, but if you don't like it, don't use the site. I know that sucks and all, but this is what Terms of Service are all about folks.
      • aliguana, on 07/03/2008, -1/+25yeah, that's fair enough, but this is the first time since YouTube started that I've heard that it records EVERY video you watch. wtf?? Every video you upload, fair enough, but...
      • chrillen, on 07/03/2008, -4/+4Yep, you're right man.
      • khouros, on 07/03/2008, -1/+14Lucky that you aren't the voice of reason then. You could just as easily say "love it or leave it" to anyone who desires to improve the level of political discourse in this country...
      • covertbadger, on 07/03/2008, -0/+10@aliguana

        "this is the first time since YouTube started that I've heard that it records EVERY video you watch."

        Realistically, you should assume this to be the case without anyone telling you. EVERY large commercial website records EVERYTHING you do. Page views and user actions are stored in meticulous detail and analysed to see how people interact with the site, so as to improve layout, navigation, advertising, etc. Youtube will have literally terabytes of logs in their data warehouse recording not only every video you've watched, but how long you watched it for, which links you clicked on that page, which related videos you rated or commented on, and probably a hundred other little details that seem meaningless on their own but build up a sophisticated profile when considered together.
      • spawnfree, on 07/03/2008, -0/+7time to regret making all those comments about the new world order.
      • toekneebullard, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4Hey, I'm not saying it's an ideal situation...just saying that's what the situation is. You can't agree to a ToS, and then get unhappy when they actually do what you said they could do.
    • jpwalsh1, on 07/03/2008, -25/+34You know that Digg records all the stories you digg/comment on/comments you digg on, and your IP address, right?

      Most websites do this.

      Paranoia FTL
      • itsthebrod, on 07/03/2008, -5/+74Is Digg handing them over to random third parties to prove a point? Didn't think so.
      • Murdats, on 07/03/2008, -1/+51if a court rules it then yes.
        you think google would do this if they werent legally forced to?
      • hax0r, on 07/03/2008, -2/+9I have a brilliant, genius idea! Why don't they just NOT record/log anything that could be used against their users? Since when do we the people need to provide the ammunition for their government to oppress us with fascism and take away our privacy and inalienable rights? I say, destroy all the logs and stop recording them!
      • Greenkayak, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6Correct! That is the point - Google should NOT even keep these records since they have said they believe in privacy and do not want to turn over private information of their users. The BEST way to protect their users is to be smart in the first place and not record this data and keep it. That way, in the case of a court ruling like this one, there would not be private data the court or the prosecution could request. Simple, yet apparently, Google was not smart enough to figure out and do!!!
      • tvanwyk, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1I think we'd all be better off if more people employed more skepticism, pessimism, and indeed paranoia to the actions of governments and large commercial interests. (And if anybody's thinking it, you can cram that "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?" ***** straight up your ass.)
      • t0x2c, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Alot of Google's income comes from using these records and sharing anonymized portions with advertising or marketing firms.
    • lordewoks, on 07/03/2008, -1/+267Imagine if YouPorn had to do the same thing?
      • ChristianMagic, on 07/03/2008, -1/+23Someone must do something before it's too late!
      • ColorBlind, on 07/03/2008, -3/+101wow, i'd finally get screwed

        *baa-daa-chhhh*
      • daimposter, on 07/03/2008, -0/+54hey government, i accidentally clicked on the woman with horse video. I was mislead by the title 'woman rides a stallion'. please don't arrest me.
      • Jashro, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8As long as that video history information isn't leaked to the public, I'll still be accepted in society.
      • Handonam, on 07/03/2008, -0/+15damnit dude, i've been searching under "gays" and "*****" instead of "straight." I can't let them see that









        ........wait.
      • silfiriel, on 07/03/2008, -1/+5like I care, I watch porn and I like it! and I am not ashamed to say it!
      • maloventevil, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1i lold.
    • NRay7882, on 07/03/2008, -0/+64Someone in the Google / YouTube Tape Archive department is hanging themselves from the rafters at this moment.
      • ColorBlind, on 07/03/2008, -2/+16like wizard of oz!
      • Jeremyz0r, on 07/03/2008, -1/+12ColorBlind, did you actually watch the original black & white version of it? :P
      • StormTroopr, on 07/03/2008, -1/+22Not sure he could tell which was which.
      • FutureGuy, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7Its Google's policy to hang on to this info forever, they do that for Google search also.
      • simd, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9Surely this raises as many concerns about Google's data retention policies?
    • LouTreize, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4I agree with you but unfortunately, thats how it goes.

      I read an article a few days ago about a site called Hatebook.org (runs like Facebook). I'm well aware of the site but was never aware of the story behind it. Basically, it's backed by a marketing firm that views, records and analyzes what each member on the site does, down to the wire. It's a pretty smart move for a marketing firm but the fact that they're able to do that, makes you wonder what Facebook, MySpace or any other social site does.
    • yuanzhoulu, on 07/03/2008, -13/+8how is it a violation of privacy? by accessing the site and signing up you are giving them this information. they have every right to log it.

      don't like it? don't use it. this is not the government infringing the constitution, this is a company doing everything in their right because you chose to use their service.
      • Jeremyz0r, on 07/03/2008, -1/+12I did not sign up to youtube so my information could be forcively given to a third-party who's only desire could possibly be to spam me. Now they'll probably have access to my email address. God forbid if I receive a Viagra email from Vietcommy.
      • hexydes, on 07/03/2008, -1/+15To be fair though, it *IS* the government forcibly taking this information and providing it to other entities.

        Perhaps the government should stop acting as the stormtroopers for specific large corporations...
      • MrShinra, on 07/03/2008, -1/+11Because I accessed YOUTUBE,

        NOT Viacom.

        Viacom is not directly affliated with Youtube, therefore there is NO reason for them to access my data.
      • hierophantus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2"I did not sign up to youtube so my information could be forcively given to a third-party who's only desire could possibly be to spam me."

        Depends on what the Terms of Use that you agreed to when you signed up say. And that would be according to either the terms that were there when you signed up or the terms after they changed, which change you agreed to go along with when you first signed on to those Terms of Use. Not saying it's wonderful, but that's how it works.
    • Sillywombat, on 07/03/2008, -2/+44The source code??
      Thats going a bit ***** far!
      • SpongeBad, on 07/03/2008, -0/+20"The order also requires Google to turn over copies of all videos that it has taken down for any reason."

        Doesn't that require Google to violate copyright? (Given that they're being told to make copies of content that they agreed was a violation of copyright). It's a trap!
    • Congzilla, on 07/03/2008, -4/+93Welcome everyone to Police State 1.0. Make sure to hand your rights over upon entering.
      • ProjectGSX, on 07/03/2008, -4/+23What rights do we have to hand over anymore?
      • Demener, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4I think all that's left is "Life".
      • misticaldragon, on 07/03/2008, -15/+8You whiny little bitches have so many rights, it's incomprehensible that you could make a retarded comment like that. I agree that this particular instance is wrong, but you have incredible amounts of freedom, and it's pretty sad that you just take it for granted.
      • Volaitle86, on 07/03/2008, -2/+9misticaldragon, go watch some more fox news
      • silfiriel, on 07/03/2008, -4/+2Your dignity will be confiscated and given back on exit. unfortunately this usualy never happens, as it is impossible such commodity like your dignity to be restored once taken.
        Have a pleasant stay at Police State 1.0.
      • MnMs, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1How is that a police state? Shut your ***** mouth, bitch. This isn't 1984... I hate crazy conspiracy theorists like you.

        OMG THEY ARE USING LOGS FROM A VIDEO WEBSITE!!!1 THEY R OUT 2 GET ME
    • WiseWeasel, on 07/03/2008, -0/+15Sure makes me happy I never registered a Youtube or Google account of any type. All they have on me is my cryptic browser cookie ID...
      • Demener, on 07/03/2008, -0/+23And your IP address.
      • netneutrality, on 07/03/2008, -0/+16And your OS and browser make and version. And the URLs of which websites referred you to those videos, including any _search terms_.
      • WiseWeasel, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3IP address is shared behind a NAT router, browser/OS ID is also shared on my LAN, and they can have the digg referral if they want... Point is, without a tremendous amount of detective work which isn't going to happen, my ID is safe from this mess because I haven't registered anything with Google. Their reach is far too broad for me to trust them with my real life ID.
      • t0x2c, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Viacom just asked us to turn over all the data we have on WiseWeasel. They say they are going to use it to cross reference the data they have from YouTube so they can monitor copyright violation, or further their marketing, I forget.
    • mwalker05, on 07/03/2008, -0/+14welcome to the internet. everything you do can be logged and saved and most of the time is. this myth of anonymity that people have while online is so far from the truth. every google search you have ever done is also recorded and saved. every website you visit logs your ip address. if you dont want to be caught on a website, use a proxy or someone elses wifi.
      • Brainmodder, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Except for websites with rigorous autodeletion or people who use torr.
    • medicinewoman, on 07/03/2008, -1/+9Time for a change from our recently emerged Surveillance Society headed by the banker/corporate/military/complex, Carter a prior US president warned of it years ago. Orwell's book 1984 outlined a reality that has become the USA in 2002,an unflattering image. (oh 1984 is now on Gov library watchlist...seems NSA recognizes the unpleasant reality recently created during Bush regime too and hopes this book doesn't become popular again) Check out website for freepress and website for (American Civil Liberties Union) ACLU... for action alternatives...and don't get tired and give up. We can change this...we just have to put energy into it and get together on it...we've done it before....
      • Quisquis, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3Got a cite for 1984 being on the govt watch list? I'm not trying to be combative, but I just spent 10 minutes digging through google and couldn't find anything about that. I'd like to have a source to make a point in an argument I'm having with a few friends.
      • coyote1284, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2COOL! Everyone in high-school Honors English class is now on a watchlist!
      • nayrproductions, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Pretty sure is was Eisenhower who warned of the great military industrial complex long before Carter did....if he even did.
    • Brainmodder, on 07/03/2008, -7/+3A bunch IP addresses and a record of every youtube video ever watched is a huge wad of data. Ever hear the saying drinking from a firehose? If you want to make things worse for viacom start watching lots of youtube videos, by adding more data you make it harder for viacom to sort through it.
      • Genrre, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6I am sure that there will be algorithms applied to it to make it manageable. Adding even a few million more views won't do anything.
      • johnvbrennan, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2That's the dumbest idea I've heard in a long time.
    • jabelar, on 07/03/2008, -3/+8I hope the "2 girls 1 cup reaction videos" aren't copyright by Viacom, else I'm in trouble ...
    • Quenlin, on 07/03/2008, -0/+28They should simply take each video, show all IPs and times viewed, and print it off, send it to them, and charge for shipping.

      As of now, Rick Roll has 15,931,204 views, they can start with that.
    • Synova, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8I can't believe YouTube is stupid enough to log this stuff. Most companies are responsible enough to use the data and destroy it within a few months so this exact thing couldn't happen.
      • keyme, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2All this data could (and probably is) used to enhance the search algorithm. If the system knows what you usually watch, and where you're from, it can give you better results.
        Google AdSense clearly states that the ads are based upon this kind of process.
      • Marijuana, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1They aren't stupid. They are smart. Meaning it wasn't done accidentally.
      • meltat373k, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Have you ever heard of a data warehouse?
    • kosser, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4they are putting us all into a database one way or another. and now they are trying to control the internet which is our last hope for freedom of speech. get ready for the end people it is coming soon.
      • GrubFisher, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Unless people start 'barning' some *****, if ya know what I mean ;)
    • nwoantibody, on 07/03/2008, -6/+6That's google for you. Do no evil...
      Only dumbasses believed a company that moved to the same building as the NSA.
      With everybody being a moron, no wonder ***** like this happens and goes unpunished.

      • TheInfinityZero, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0I thought it was "Don't be evil."
    • slythfox, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8Why I don't like is the fact that this information was actually saved.
    • Monkeydew06, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5You realize, this has the potential to form a class action suit. If the Youtube community was to contact the ACLU, they might be able to form a case agaisn't this exchange.
    • delfin1, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2wow maybe you should sue the judge.
    • texxel, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1The Big Guy is always trying to screw the little guy, bro.
    • alwaysmrsghost, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Viacom wants to rule the world. Or so says Josh.
    • LeeSoong, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1I don't like it +5 volts...
    • Gilgamesh73, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1The government can and has worked via corporations in the past to conceal blame, and no doubt still do, so this is definitely something to be concerned about because YT is rife with 9/11 Truthers and anti-government videos. Regardless, I will not let this change my YT viewing habits though.

      For proof read the best-seller: The Confessions of an Economic Hitman; or watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8. Perkins admits this pretty early into the video.
    • scimitar91, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2Yeah I'm never going to youtube again.
      holy ***** how can i do that?!?!1
    • Jaliyl, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1I feel betrayed, the Pirate bay would never do this to me.
    • lukas88, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2I don't like it either, people might get the wrong impression that I am a fan of Rick Astley
    • TomJohn, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Clearly you have something to hide. Please print out this comment and present it in person at your local police department.
    • robbob, on 07/04/2008, -1/+3There is no such thing as a "right to privacy". No laws, nothing.
      • Monkeydew06, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Actually no...
        Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas (writing for the majority) ruled that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment (which addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution) to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.
        -Wiki (because it'd take too long to type myself)

        Basically, the Supreme Court has flexed the constitution to include "Right to privacy" by utilizing the 9th amendment which basically states (ADD MORE POWERS HERE IF NEED BE).
        Since the supreme court is the final word on the constitution, right to Privacy is 'basically' in the constitution.

        If you need more information you outta look at: "Roe V. Wade, or Griswold v. Connecticut"

    • jetsetter883, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1does it matter? i can care less if they know what i watched on youtube.
      • Monkeydew06, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Eh, I'm more or less concerned about the "releasing names and IP addresses". Why the hell do they need that?
    • moush, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Maybe you should read the fine print now morons. It's a company doing this, not a ***** government.
      • 0tis, on 07/05/2008, -0/+1The government are, however, the ones telling them they can do it. A judge had to rule that Google must hand over those details.
  • mitrick, on 07/03/2008, -40/+10i think its time for us to change our default home page and search engines.
    • Sarevok9, on 07/03/2008, -1/+69Google complied with the law... Lets damn them for it. This is a classic case of a judge violating personal privacy to aid a large media provider, this is NOT something you can fault google for. They went to court, they fought, they lost.
      • djbon2112, on 07/03/2008, -25/+5And they could refuse to comply on the grounds that they find it wrong, but they won't, because like every company, they care more about profits than their users, plain and simple.
      • Sarevok9, on 07/03/2008, -1/+21As a corporation they cannot simply 'refuse to comply' with the law, or else they would stand to face serious legal action. This isn't the movies... in the real world when a company loses in court, they bite their lip, and do what their told.... or they get shut down.
      • aadsfasdf, on 07/03/2008, -0/+12I like Google and i'm a hypocrite for saying this, but evil triumphs when good people comply with bad laws.
      • thallium205, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2@ djbon2112.. When will you idiots learn that users generate their profits! So if they seek profits, they will naturally seek to please the user.
      • Quisquis, on 07/03/2008, -3/+1Personally, if I was Sergy or Larry I'd resign (to avoid google being liable) and then personally destroy the records. Quietly arrange it so that google decides not to prosecute.

        Everyone wins, and whoever does the act is a hero in the internet's eyes.
      • Demener, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3They have to comply, but they can also appeal.
      • Sarevok9, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4@Quisquis, This isn't boiler room. If they were to destroy evidence they would be tampering with something that they were ordered to give to viacom. If they break that settlement then viacom can make whatever case they want about google and they have no defense.
    • Vet4Peace, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6Don't blame Google for this!
    • rodrigorules, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5my homepage is viacom.com
  • gbrmn, on 07/03/2008, -20/+13So if we get a link and a note "dude, ya gotta check this out!", and click on that link we get in trouble? Even when there is no way to tell ahead of time what the link is other than what site it's on (maybe)?

    If someone is smart I'm sure that this won't stand, I'm pretty sure there has to be intent to commit a crime or be a willing party to a crime. But then I'm not a lawyer, or a mainstream media power.
    • t0ny, on 07/03/2008, -2/+30The viewers are not the ones viacom is going after ( well at least not now ), they are trying to sue Google.
      • kravex, on 07/03/2008, -0/+20If it's Rick Astleys lawyers Google will go bust.
    • smackjack, on 07/03/2008, -6/+1Yeah the crime is watching a god damn video
    • zyl0x, on 07/03/2008, -0/+11The flaw in your plan is that it relies on smart people being involved.
    • praha, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1This aggression will not stand, man.
    • clickwir, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Exactly, how are you supposed to know that this could be considered sexy?

      http://youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
  • hnsez, on 07/03/2008, -4/+314I was all set to rage against the DMCA and Clinton but after reading the Judges ruling http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/viacom_yout ... the basis of the plaintiff's complaint is not the DMCA. In fact the ruling is based on the Copyright Act of 1976. Google is actually trying to use the protection offered by DMCA but the Judge obviously ruled against that argument. I disagree with the ruling because there are plenty of cases to support Google's argument that the law provides a safe harbor for online services so long as they comply with copyright takedown requests. Appeal this ***** Google!@
    • eleete, on 07/03/2008, -1/+34"Google is actually trying to use the protection offered by DMCA but the Judge obviously ruled against that argument."

      Each time the RIAA and MPAA uses it, the judge sides with them. I think it's a gross misuse of the data and the judge should have no say in the matter that I am party to. I've used youtube a lot and never expected that my information should be handed (in bulk with ALL other users) to the plaintiff. If there was any logic to this judge he should have required only the information pertaining only to the infringed videos. This is just gross.
    • FutureGuy, on 07/03/2008, -8/+2Partly its Google to blame, I am sure their PR department did an excellent spin job. Google has a policy of hanging on to "everything you ever do online", for their own benefit.
    • medicinewoman, on 07/03/2008, -8/+1Google needs to clean up its act. Keeping everything ...forever is just another piece of the Surveillance Society mentality that has been nurtured during the Bush regime. Unfortunately DIGG needs to be careful too. Or it will be a target. People are very open with opinions here and only certain opinions are valued by the NSA, so be careful. A warning for all of us. don't want the men in black suits at the door of our computer gates or our homes. It sn't necessary to do anything wrong to be targeted TODAY ANd thank God for the ACLU and FreePess, and Youtube or things would be even worse.
    • jerrycurley, on 07/03/2008, -8/+1The DCMA also says that just taking down copyrighted materiaql is NOT enough if it is ridiculously easy to put it back up.

      Again...what law school did you go to that makes you such an expert on the law in this case?
      • jerrycurley, on 07/03/2008, -5/+1I love thaty I am gettng buried for correctly pointing out the caluse in the DCMA that says that sites like YouTube must take reasonable measures to prevent the material from being put back up.

        Digg is so awesome. It is where the ignorant can go to feel intelligent by burying those smarter than them. No wonder no one has made Kevin a big money offer on this site. Someone is trying to figure out a way to buy the sit, but not the user base.
      • jinxplayer, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2The ***** one where they teach you how to read, *****.
      • ashfish, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Think you missed the part in the article about Viacom requesting the code that IDs repeat copyright infringement: "Viacom also requested YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads..."
      • hnsez, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1lol who needs to read or spell to challenge my bonafides, not u apparently
      • jerrycurley, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0I didnt miss any part. The point is, the original child poster, who is not an expert at all, yet seems to think that he knows more about the DCMA than the judge, clearly does not know that merely taking down copyrighted material is not enough to qualify for protection under the DCMA.
    • tito666, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2jerrycurley,
      The most effective way of expressing your 'intelligence' and point of view to people probably isn't through insulting them and repeatedly asking for credentials (a pointless challenge; they can't even be verified here).

      The bombastic 'You're an idiot. I'm smarter than you, so listen to me' sort of posting obviously isn't working for you. If you're so intelligent, why don't you change your tactics?

    • xenoc1de, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1I don't see google letting this one go lightly. It is a big loss for internet privacy.
    • delfin1, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1google doesn't really need to do much...it looks like the users will do all the dirty, but much needed, work
    • m8ymerc1, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1There is no privacy anymore. the only way now is to sell your home, throw away your credit cards and move deep into the woods/mountains. No more contact with anyone. Thats great until !!!!! your runovered by a bulldozer due to immanent domain.
    • GeckoSlayer, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1"Google’s internet search tool “Google.com”"

      The fact they wanted google's source code that powered google.com's search... I know it wasn't approved but I thought this was about YOUTUBE and not google.com?
  • 51684, on 07/03/2008, -23/+8What about when you click a youtube link not knowing what it is?

    Could there now be such thing has a Viacomroll?
    • HerbSolo, on 07/03/2008, -4/+11RTFA, not just the headlines, OK?
    • TSSaloic, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Never gonna Colbert you up, never gonna Stewart you down, Never gonna let MTV hurt you...
  • SearchRank, on 07/03/2008, -14/+10Talk about invasion of privacy. What, is Viacom going to come after users for watching content that they feel violated copyright?
    • Coven, on 07/03/2008, -3/+17RTFA
    • pilobilus, on 07/03/2008, -0/+19Invasion of piracy. Arrr.

      But seriously, this information will be used by Viacom for marketing purposes. Expect to see very precisely targeted ads for movies and TV shows starting in 3, 2, 1 ....
      • NeoNevermore, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6"We're no strangers to love..."
      • oxymoron69, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2You know the rules and so do I
      • celkin, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1A full commitment's what I'm thinking of
    • digitalhair, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Okay, so now Sumner Redstone AKA Murray Rothstein, the guy who owns Viacom, will have a record of all IP addresses and usernames that have been watching all of the content that has been exposing all of the atrocious privacy and government constitution trampling that's been going on.

      This isn't about copyright.

      This is about preventing the population from finding out what's going on w/ Iran, the trampling of the constitution, net neutrality, politics, and suppression of the free proliferation of information. The judge is clearly corrupt - I wouldn't be surprised if he was a Bush appointee.

      This all started with samples of The Daily Show clips on youtube,during the writer's strike which just happened to occur during the runup to the last congressional election... Remember Viacom said it didn't have to pay its writers for online content because it didn't make that much money, but then it sued Google for ONE BILLION DOLLARS?

      All this happened when the exposing nature of the political video content and commentary on The Daily Show would have benefit the voting population the most. I say this because the clips that The Daily Show report on are typically news-worthy or satire-worthy because they're absurdities that aren't or can't be covered by the major news networks for their stubborn devotion to political correctness, or because of their financial interests. Sometimes network news reporting IS the "news" that only The Daily Show covers. Case/point:

      http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/04/30/jon-stew ...

      So everyone should be watching to see how this information will make it into the hands of the federal government. Just watch...
  • ethanlyon, on 07/03/2008, -1/+64Couldn't Viacom tag users with significant copyright material for later action? Though they aren't going to prosecute anyone immediately--simply prove a point that doesn't really need to be proven--the information they have could potentially put people in jail down the road. And, the only reason Viacom would want to know JUST if there is more copyrighted material than not, are they going to try to take down YouTube?
    • medicinewoman, on 07/03/2008, -5/+1You Tube has been a non-favorite of the Bush regime whose financial connections run far and deep. I suspect your question is a good one...it is really about taking Utube down. And even judges can be intimidated by the big boys in the black suits.
    • jabberwolf, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1oh good gawd... no more conspiracy crap about "regimes" !!!

      The court might be right in asking youtube to provide the IP addresses of those that posted copyright materials. As those posting can be committing a copyright crime, and if google does not provide those specific IP addresses of a known crime, that would be obstruction.

      But for ALL IP ADDRESSES ?? That's ridiculous and THAT should be overturned!
      That is a blanket warrant for all information of everyone who have NOT committed any crime and have not been shown to commit a crime. Blanket warrants like this are ILLEGAL !

      Welp looks like people will be posting things from starbucks now!!!
    • enri, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2No, they want money. Viacom is too stingy and out of the times to develop something comparable to YouTube; so the next best thing is to let someone else do all the hard work then sue them for their "share". Yes, Google is making some money off of Viacom's works. I don't have much sympathy for Viacom considering their unwillingness to accept profit sharing because they wouldn't make _enough_ profits from the advertising to sate their hunger.
      • utahnkid, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1Do you know ANYTHING about Viacom? Do you know how many insanely lucrative companies are under that umbrella? Google might distribute and link to the content but Viacom CREATES the content.
      • funkywood, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Viacom want to be the new YouTube. Why do you think they tried their luck and asked for the source code?
    • utahnkid, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1I hope every user that uploaded a significant amount of copyrighted materiel DOES go down. Downloading and streaming content IS the future. Nothing will stop that. It's not like we need to keep up some fight against physical media, in fact every production company prefers a method like streaming or downloading because you never receive a physical product and it's 100x easier to track that way. Every ridiculous copyright law and form of copy protection exists today because of dick heads ripping it off.

      Viacom only exists because they create something the general public are gladly willing to pay for. If you're genuinely opposed to their business model then stop giving them your money. If enough people do that they'll be forced to change. That's how things work in the real world.

      Stick to numa numa dancing kid videos if you're not willing to pay for quality content you cheap bastards.
    • blankman, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2That would be like trying to charge people in a bar for watching a movie that the bar owner bought and showed with the FBI warning "not for public broadcast".
    • KMartSheriff, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2***** Viacom. I'm gonna go upload every copyrighted thing I can find in my house and upload it to YouTube.
  • pilobilus, on 07/03/2008, -4/+562Since when is it the business of a court of law to loot one company's market research data to enrich another company?
    • bmac12, on 07/03/2008, -1/+81Since most of the smart people left public service and moved to the private sector
    • sint4x, on 07/03/2008, -5/+2What is one man's market research data is another man's copyright infringement data.
    • Nielsio, on 07/03/2008, -2/+10Ever since 'anti-trust' laws.

      Thomas DiLorenzo - Protectionist anti-trust
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X0InosdEvk&fmt=18
    • tvanwyk, on 07/03/2008, -2/+1Since businesses and governments like to suck each other off. That's when.
    • kubedawg, on 07/03/2008, -1/+7Google should reply with a big NO followed by a ***** you.
    • smrekar, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1SIMPLE SOLUTION:
      Turn over the information in hard copy form and use an annoying font, small text and 1 entry per page. They don't get to pick how they get the information, just that they get it. This is the same thing as paying someone in unwrapped pennies in trash cans, just to stick it to them.
    • Zlorp, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1this is america. you might think the government here is selected by the people to oversee the people. but its not, its elected by corporate america so that it can improve corporate america. so that a few thousand people can be 10,000x richer than you are and then pat you on the back and tell you that "you have the same opportunity"
    • Gilgamesh73, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The government can and has worked via corporations in the past to conceal blame, and no doubt still do, so this is definitely something to be concerned about. YT is rife with 9/11 Truthers and anti-government videos and they are most likely going after these individuals.

      For proof read the best-seller: The Confessions of an Economic Hitman; or watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8. Perkins admits this pretty early into the video.
  • xatx2, on 07/03/2008, -55/+8awesome, ***** youtube and google
    • MisterEX, on 07/03/2008, -2/+33No, ***** viacom, man.
    • junkwheel, on 07/03/2008, -3/+7Good luck with that.
    • D14BL0, on 07/03/2008, -3/+19Do you mean "***** Viacom"? Google/YouTube can't do ***** against the judge's ruling.
      • LightSpeed4, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1they can appeal it or deny to do it.

        You're ***** stupid. google fanboy
    • smackjack, on 07/03/2008, -4/+5yeah lets just condemn them for doing what a judge ordered them to do.

      Idiot.
    • xatx2, on 07/03/2008, -7/+4From the article: "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."

      I meant exactly what I said, and I hope the end result is that Google becomes liable or has an increased liability.
      • Demener, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4Who the hell is digging you up? If Google goes under do you have any idea what that will do to the internet? No, of course you don't. Your a moron.
      • xatx2, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1if google goes under, we will have a free internet. cant you see how much theyre attempting to control everything and everyone and know what everyone is thinking? no, because you're a google fanboy moron
  • Gregd, on 07/03/2008, -4/+40Now it won't be "Hello YouTubes!". It'll be "Hello Viacom!" for ole Ronald Jenkees
  • leontes, on 07/03/2008, -4/+148Viacom is idiotic to get this information raw because it creates really bad press for them, judging by the comments here.

    It wouldn't be too hard for them to refuse to see the data until a neutral third party makes the information anonymous to protect user privacy.

    Viacom claims they only wish to data to guage how much copyrighted materials youtube watchers watch. It makes me think that as they are willing to risk this public relations nightmare, they are using the information to try to somehow pin this on the end users and that puts Viacom squarely in the RIAA *****-em category for me.

    This is all beside the point, that attempting to sue people for violation of copyright for enjoying your product is utterly dull... Instead these companies should be appealing to their pocketbooks and create novel ways of packaging the content to earn more money, rather than attack those for enjoying their works.
    • Gregd, on 07/03/2008, -0/+37Public opinion hasn't stopped the juggernaut that is the RIAA or the MPAA. Viacom isn't interested in public opinion. They're interested in the almighty dollar.
      • Murdats, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6actually the MAFIAA is all about the PA and finacial victories, not the legal victories.

        the only problem is they suck at fighting. they have greed, ignorance and money as their weapons, we have market demand, knowledge and numbers on ours.
      • m0deth, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8and they sure as hell aren't worried about user rights, they want these names for myriad purposes, this judge just handed them a prosecutor's ball of wax.

        once again, this all stems from the 'corporate person' having more rights than the 'individual person' in US law.
    • NJPENSO, on 07/03/2008, -1/+6" Viacom is idiotic to get this information raw because it creates really bad press for them, judging by the comments here. "

      I really don't think you understand quite how huge of a company Viacom is. They own almost all of the popular tv channels and paramount pictures, there's no possible way that bad press could scratch them.
      • SchmuckofNI, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1On the contrary, there is this thing called the Internet that will give them bad press as it is unregulated.
    • extremer, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The outside public doesn't have a clue who/what Viacom is...
  • leejae, on 07/03/2008, -23/+1blog
  • hpvforum, on 07/03/2008, -13/+236Well I guess they'll see my affinity towards Ron Paul videos. I should probably be scared.
    • sx66gns, on 07/03/2008, -1/+19or mine with booty shakes.

    • RoflCoptah, on 07/03/2008, -0/+17hmm they'll just see all the times ive been ricked rolled
    • kencurran, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1My girlfriend better not be able to just call up Viacom and see what I'm doing D'= I hid it from the public for a reason.
    • Gilgamesh73, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1The government can and has worked via corporations in the past to conceal blame, and no doubt still do, so this is definitely something to be concerned about. YT is rife with 9/11 Truthers and anti-government (New World Order) videos and they are most likely going after these individuals.

      For proof read the best-seller: The Confessions of an Economic Hitman; or watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8. Perkins admits this pretty early into the video.
    • LilBambi, on 07/04/2008, -0/+1Mine too! Most of mine are about unconstitutional rhetoric, science, weather, etc. but mostly about what's going on with Ron Paul and stuff like that.
  • theghoul, on 07/03/2008, -4/+169Thats why keeping track of IP addresses is stupid.
    • Chorizotarian, on 07/03/2008, -1/+51Agree. Google has no legitimate business need to retain your IP address. It's a bad policy.
    • chedabob, on 07/03/2008, -7/+15IP addresses are useful for the police when tracking down douchebags that post videos of themselves beating the ***** out of someone.
      • kaelyiesta, on 07/03/2008, -3/+23So? It would also be useful for the police to install cameras in our eyes so they could watch what we see at all times to catch criminals.

        Ready to bite that bullet?
      • hax0r, on 07/03/2008, -2/+8Sorry, but that's not even close to nearly a good enough justification!
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I've NEVER heard of someone getting caught that way. It has always been the case that they were simply recognized in the video or credited themselves by name (as unbelievable as that is), at least in all the instances I've heard of anyway.

        Besides, nearly all consumer IPs are dynamic. They aren't as useful as you might think, especially a few months after the fact.
    • microchp, on 07