Judge Orders YouTube to Give All User Histories to Viacom

go get em viacom

I don't see any real need to disclose user identities and other personal information to a third party, especially when Viacom has no claim to the video. How does my personal information help Viacom determine whether a video is or is not its copyrighted material? This judge got it wrong, plain and simple.

This is nuts. The DMCA, as bad as it is, clear spells out the procedure here. ID the vids, and Google is (all too) happy to take them down. The problem Viacom seems to have is that it's "too difficult." Waah.

Also, someone needs to find the IP addresses at that courthouse and run it against that dataset.

Does this just affect registered YouTube users?

Also, when data gets turned over to other parties in cases like this, that the users didn't originally agree to, do the companies like Viacom that obtain that info become liable for it in terms of security and such? I'm guessing there's something buried in the TOS that covers this.

google should scrub the data of as much personal information as possible and then release it to show how many youtube videos people working at Viacom watched

But Viacom said that internet viewing of television shows was merely promotional! That's why they didn't want to pay the writers!

That halt's my use of YouTube and Google for "eclectic" materials. Google should never have kept the info to begin with.

The judge most certainly got it wrong. It's a shame that legal precedents are being set by ill-informed jurists who attempt to apply old-world legal assessments to digital-world realities.

Hopefully Google will fight this and seek to receive a less ignorant decision.

Cheers.

"that argument as "speculative" er.. out of the two arguments 1. handing over names and ip invades privacy vs 2. Viacom was damaged by a few vids on youtube I'd say the 2nd was MUCH more speculative.

Linking *names* and ips is identifying material, otherwise why do it? Sounds like Viacom wants to build it's own database of people to check on. That's invasion.

Viacom videos on youtube IS more like free advertising. Nobody* (*in the grander scheme) watches whole films on youtube, the qualities just too bad.

And finally "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."

WHO are they to demand OUR private videos?? That's like strolling into your house and taking the tape (sd,HDD whatever) out of your camcorder. At least that was stopped. But how worrying is that.

I think if you hit the public mass the public mass should hit back.

"The Judge"

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

Phones

(212) 805-0252

Faxes

(212) 805-0389

They should move to have any of that evidence quashed on the grounds of hersay. Viacom should have to supeona each and every alleged viewer on their own to figure out if that alleged viewer viewed the clip. And what right under God's green earth gives Viacom the access to the records that have nothing to do with Viacom content. That's a bunch of bull and irrelevant to Viacom's alleged harm. Invasion of privacy? You bet, also prejudicial to Google.

I mostly watch Magibon's videos. She's not Viacom.

Um, Daniel Patrick Moynihan is the late former Senator from New York...

Since Viacom is so worried about money,as any business normally would be,I would suggest Viacom avoid alienating current and potential customers.
I've had it with these corporate juggernauts trying to push consumers around.
I call for a boycott on everything that Viacom and the RIAA touches.Don't buy the cd,dvd,download,service or whatever these a -holes offer.
I feel no sympathy for the corporate
fools that ignored potential of computers when the internet came into it's own.Instead of changing with the times ,they chose not to look beyond thier own greed.
Let the customers speak - with our money - where we will spend it and how.

"Viacom's demands that Google turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I'm not even taking the time to write a formal letter.

The request for YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema, has me convinced that your legal department is totally out of touch with reality.

I'm glad that you have all your brands conveniently listed here on this website. It will serve as a quick reference for me to determine which media I will avoid at all costs."

Quick little note I jotted off to Viacom over on their contact page (http://www.viacom.com/contact/Pages/default.aspx).

Viacom requested all videos, not just those it believes it holds the copyrights to. While I can understand their position that they want to prove Google is benefiting from the actions of its users, it is the responsibility of the judge to know where the request oversteps the legal authority and refuse the order.

Viacom's request amounts to a dragnet. The company has no right to request private videos unless it has evidence of specific videos infringing on their copyrights. The refusal of their request was correct.

While the argument that IP addresses are not specifically identifying is factually true, the infrastructure is in place to resolve an identity of an IP address. The RIAA has proven quite well that it will abuse the court system to retrieve the identities of people making use of specific IP addresses and we can be sure Viacom will do the same if they think it is in their interest.

In addition, when Google made the argument that IP addresses were sufficiently anonymous and would only be used to track trends, it was generally accepted by the technical community to be a bad argument and a privacy nightmare. This was proven when AOL released "anonymous" usage data for research. The data was leaked on the Internet and within days, even unsophisticated analysis methods were returning information sufficient to obtain reliable identity information - all from search queries.

I can't help but wonder what sort of lifestyle the judge enjoys and whether some recent income came from sources outside the standard pay.

I feel it is Google's responsibility to refuse to turn over data to this overly-broad request. Appeals must be sought and the scope limited. Even though the case should be dismissed based on the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions it looks like this won't be happening. It is therefore necessary for Google to fight this as vehemently as possible. Viacom has no rights to Google's proprietary data and records whatsoever. Their request to obtain all records in an attempt to justify their accusation is akin to the Department of Justice requesting the search data of every Search Provider to justify their accusations. An request that Google refused to follow.

Despite the Music and Movie industries working together and defining this very piece of legislation called the DMCA, the Safe Harbor clauses seem to be added for the sole purpose of passing the rest of the draconian and highly questionable clauses. Now that the DMCA has been used in enough court cases and has held up against scrutiny, it looks to me like the industries now want to strip these pesky clauses back out. Research ACTA in its current form to see what other abhorrent steps the industries are taking.

The Music and Movie industries of the United States have become too powerful and have proven themselves to act only in their best short-term interests and not in the best interests of the people of the United States or the interests of the market outside their own Intellectual Property. In combination with the much extended copyright terms, their actions have a chilling affect on their respective industries as a whole. Their actions are destructive and make the marketplace volatile and fragile. For their own sake and for the sake of others competing in that market, copyright needs to be reformed back to the original intent: to promote the cultural good and progression of society while granting short-term exclusive rights to the creator, not a lifelong monopoly.

Perpetual copyright has done much to damage the market and stunt the cultural growth of the US. We are seeing the results of this in these actions by Viacom and the continuing actions of the RIAA.

The fact that the judge agreed with Viacom and made this overly broad order is astonishing. The judge's credibility, integrity and competency must be called into question.

The good news about the judge ordering Google to turn over the records is that it can't be used against users. Without a warrent or subpoena, Viacom has to sit on any evidence it has on individuals, because it's not likely that a judge will allow evidence against someone that isn't collected properly. Especially when Google argued that turning over the data violates user privacy. Users now have grounds to dismiss that data because it was illegally obtained, and even inevitable discovery isn't likely to fly with a judge.

Viacom=Fascists

Viacom's arrogance and shortsightedness now rears its ugly head- who does it threaten? Viacom of course- good riddance, MTV and Comedy Central are crap anyhow.

I don't use the internet to watch illegal videos. But I might start watching viacom videos on the internet illegally, as a way to thumb my nose at them.

Bad Form!!! I will never buy Viacom videos again!

judge is Louis Stanton . . . read the pdf folks.

Young starlets - a word of advice
GO INDIE
and save the world from these insanities

So, what happens if I insert a copyright notice into each session handshake?

"Furthermore, I will send a letter of complaint to Google stating that I do not want my privacy violated as it is not in the TOS to give out private information to third parties. I may also decide to sue Viacom to racketeering, invasion of privacy, illegal search and seizure. I might even sue the state this case was decides in for violating my 5th amendment. "

Added to the above letter.

Hypocrites. Viacom should ask the personal data of their workers and i bet all of them will be found spreading copyrighted material on Youtube.

Anyone who takes on Google should be respected. They are the evil what has brought commercials to the internet.

They abuse copyright material, and advertises support it.

They deserve to be penalised!

The FACT is, Google shouldn't have this information stored for such a long time. I can maybe understand 1-3 months MAX but after that, there is no need to have it.

We wouldn't have this problem if that was the case and everyone would be better off. I'm a huge fan of Google but this is one aspect that needs to be controlled better by them.

Hmmm, well what about users who are outside of America? I live in Canada and don't need an American judge releasing my information to a Multinational Conglomerate.

If they really want to study whether or not 'copyrighted material' (And how are we defining that? Will they sue every one who put a clip from a song behind a family slideshow?) is more popular than videos of sneezing pandas, scrubbed data should be sent to an independent data analysis firm. It's an interesting question, to be sure.

But this reeks of Viacom wanting blood.

Maybe for these massive amounts of digital data lawsuits, the information in question should NOT be turned over to the plantif. Instead, it should be turned over to an independent 3rd party who can answer question and provide statistics without divulging ANY identifying information. This would also prevent plantiffs from profiting from the information in the future.

These words, concepts, ideas, and process are herby copyrighted and a patent is in process. No reproduction in whole or in part is permitted. No further retention, duplication, posting, existance is permitted.

All this legal ping-pong is ridiculous! I think if Viacom and seeks to intimidate YouTube (Google) it will find itself in a "dinosaur" situation where users will only loathe their company "MTV, Comedy Central, anyone?".
They (Viacom) will quickly realize that they need YouTube more than YouTube needs them--not to mention that they will have infringed into a butload of SECURED constitutional rights. Good Luck Viacom!

Jesus! I hope Viacom doesn't own Dottie's Magic Pockets!

Write or email Viacom at
.
http://www.viacom.com/contact/Pages/default.aspx
.
It doesn't matter what you say. It doesn't matter whether or not they respond. If enough of us email Viacom repeatedly, the sheer weight of the email traffic will at least slow down their mail server enough to be noticed. We need to be noticed on this one.

You have got to be kidding me! Google needs to seek an appeal, this time with a judge who has a clue. Either Google's lawyer didn't argue their case properly, or something else really funny is going on.

And even if Viacom fudges the data to show copyrighted videos are more popular than original videos, which Viacom will undoubtedly find a way to do, there's no way a judge will accept it as possible intent on the part of Google, right? In that case, just because it's what the public WANTS TO SEE, it doesn't mean that was Google's intent in creating YouTube. Source: YouTube's tagline, "Broadcast YOURSELF".

Again, I can't believe the judge let this fly. It is undoubtedly a way for Viacom to try to obtain a list of possible individual copyright infringers, just like the RIAA. But like a previous poster said, the evidence will be thrown out of court because it was collected improperly. The evidence here is being collected to prove trends, "to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos." In that case, if the same evidence is then used against the particular user, they are safe. As far as I remember, evidence collected for one reason cannot then be turned around to serve another purpose.

...unless of course the judge is convinced otherwise, by extraneous funding, as suggested by another poster. But that would NEVER happen in a court of law, right?

Anyway, Google needs to seek an appeal and argue they can turn over a log of what specific videos were watched when, WITHOUT IP ADDRESSES - the list of specific videos to be provided by Viacom and which must be a copyright held by Viacom.

VIACOM HAS NO MORE RIGHT TO ANOTHER PARTY'S COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THAN YOUTUBE DOES. Under copyright law, as the RIAA makes us understand it, it is illegal to distribute, make available, or acquire copyrighted content unless you are legally entitled to it. What in the universe gives the judge the idea that Viacom is legally entitled to other company's copyrighted material???

I also call for a boycott of all Viacom merchandise, and a hope that other companies and individuals can put together a counter-suit on the grounds of absurdity, copyright infringement, and privacy invasion.

Taking the above posts as a template, I too sent a message to Viacom. PLEASE ALL DO THE SAME. WE MUST GET THEIR ATTENTION. I hope the original posters don't mind me having copied this. I'm sure they don't though as we're all in the same boat. The letter I posted was:

Viacom's demands that Google turn over every record of every video watched by YouTube users, including users' names and IP addresses, is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I'm also not even taking the time to write a formal letter.

In fact I'm not even taking the time to compose my own letter, since someone beautifully created one for me. I have changed a few things from the original, so I urge you to identify the differences and take them into consideration.

The request for YouTube's source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google's advertising database schema, has me convinced that your both your marketing and legal departments are totally out of touch with reality.

I'm glad that you have all your brands conveniently listed here on this website. It will serve as a quick reference for me to determine which media I will avoid at all costs. I will additionally make sure all my contacts are aware of the need to steer clear of Viacom products.

Furthermore, I will send a letter of complaint to Google stating that I do not want my privacy violated as it is not in the TOS to give out private information to third parties.

If you do want Google's data analyzed for your private purposes, enlist the help of an UNINTERESTED third party, then contact a judge for the handover of the information. The third party will then be able to provide accurate results, as they are not interested in the data, and they are PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED TO ANALYZE DATA AND STATISTICS.

Thanks for paying attention to your customers wants and needs. After all, the without customers, you can't really have a business, can you?

is this a hoax????

i support google on this one. they should protect our data and respect our privacy. tell viacom to name specific videos that they want data for otherwise bug off you criminals. google could make this go away with a billion dollar settlement, then what. the judge needs to be rick rolled for his descision.

Private Information should NOT be held anywhere - this violates the privacy and democracy of the Net. Neither Viacom nor Google (or the dear Government Inc. via all this big corps) shall have the power to abuse the privacy of its netizens. Turning over private info should be against the law, but law is the domain of the ruling elite - so no surprise there when the rulers change the rules of the game when it fits them like in the case of telcos retroactive immunity, etc.

Hang on... six people (at least) have looked at Youtube on my computer... then there's all the times my kids have watched it with THEIR friends gathered round.

Dang, the only way I can help the nice judge is if I go through all the ones watched from this computer and ask everyone what they watched and how many times. This could be a long job, and I really don't want to keep the poor guy waiting for ever...

ps...
there's only one piece of information I want... how many videos the judge and his family have watched on Youtube at home.

I don't know if this covers data from just the US or the whole world, but I didn't sign up for my personal details to be given out to anyone. How corrupt is this guy? It seems like he is allowing something that doesn't make legal sense to me. And aren't Viacom part of the juggernaut that is denying artists pay for internet views due to this merely being 'promotional or advertising' for the said shows. Hypocritical or not?? I am cut and pasting EX-VIACOM USERS letter to send to them - sorry for breech of copyright mate, but you understand yeah??

Hmmm, lesser of the 2 evils.

Are we more annoyed at Viacom for their incredible violation of our privacy in requesting personally identifying data that is far in excess of what is necessary for their "case"

Or are we more annoyed at Google for retaining personally identifying information related to every YouTube video we've ever watched?

Oh well, at least its the best legal system that money can buy eh?

Speaking of money, voting with dollars is the only real way we have of communicating with "The Man". No more Viacom for me.....

Honestly, what are we worried about? I can't imagine such an upstanding corporate overlord such as Viacom doing anything untoward with such information. Oh wai...

Viacom just kicked my door in and took my computer. I'm now checking Wired on a paper bag with a tiny stick of graphite. I only hope that my picture of the site is good enough that my post makes it up in time to warn everyone else!

I'm curious how they are going to square that with users from countries with far more stringent privacy laws. I'm sure they are demanding everything and not just the data on US users.

I'm looking forward to a suit being brought forward in the European Court of Human rights. :op

I'm sure it won't happen but I do wonder what the legal interplay is. Certain unsavory people are already using stringent UK libel laws to prevent the publication of certain books.

All they need is the number of hits, which is logged for every movie.

They do not need the other information at all.

To ask for it is to go fishing for extra targets to sue.

4TB logfiles. 250bytes per log entry (view). 17.6 billion views in less than four years of existence.

YouTube may have the largest number of videos but this number of views is much less than expected.

Is YouTube this overrated? And for ViaCom, suppose that 5% of all YouTube views are of their copyrighted material, that means 880 million views. I suppose they want a dollar per view?

FFS Viacom - get with the program!

Get your stuff online like the BBC do through iPlayer and you'll be sorted, everybody is a winner! Then you don't have to go through expensive and pointless legal wrangling to get info you don't actually need and will most likely not use.

Tsk...

How, exactly, does giving away personal information about people NOT violate their privacy? I don't see what is speculative about it.

It seems to me - and I freely admit I am but a layman - that the judge has ordered Google to act in a manner which presumes their guilt, to uncover evidence of their guilt. This seems rather unreasonable.

A cable company gets 4TBs of info about what people watch and where they are watching from.

How much would that information cost if you had to buy it?

Viacom, don't bite the hand that feeds. We all know what the wrath of the users can do, no matter how big and bad you think you are.

If they're after personal data, the first thing they are gonna siv for are names of their company and or programs - right what we all need to do here is login to our you tube profiles and wherever possible write your opinion about Viacom (be sure to write their name) and throw in a few programme names for the hell of it...

It's the least you could do.

Sad, I guess I can boycott Comedy Central, although I quite enjoy some John Stewart... Perhaps we should write to him, and Colbert, and the creators of South Park and tell them to leave their fascist bosses, switch to a different channel, we will follow.

Seems like I recall something similar with the RIAA and Napster. And we all know how albumn sales slumped after that. Viacom should take a hint and be more discreet and just ask to take the videos down.

I think they're really pulling the data so they can see what shows to keep/cancel for the next season.

So where do we get in line for the class action law suit naming Viacom and Google for violating our privacy simply for watching a video. I've not watched any of the alledged pirated videos, but yet I will no be subject to some corperation knowing I watched a boss downing video?

Hit them in the pocketbooks, folks. Call your investment fund managers, and tell them that you no longer wish to invest in any Viacom holdings, and to divest of any you have now immediately.

I am on Viacoms side on this lawsuit.

YouTube can prevent the uploading of copyrighted material any time they want to. They choose not to because so far it is in their interest to do so.

I think you would agree if it was your property being distributed without your consent and without compensation to you.

Somebody fire this judge.

He obviously isn't competent.

didn't know viacom was such a stuck in the past company, too bad, will somebody please eat them now?

Privacy is no more. Orwell was right, just 24 years to early.

First of all I'm on an open wifi router so my IP address does not necessarily correlate to any one individual. There's some guy sitting on my stoop with a laptop right now, and oh, he's watching YouTube!

Secondly, I've strictly copyrighted my IP address and all my internet traffic (c) 2008, so if anyone looks at it they are infringing and will be countersued.

Thirdly, I've written my own legal terms and conditions for this blog post and anyone reading it will be subject to potential lawsuits at my whim.

Well, back to the patent I'm writing for the unique viewing of a particularly crappy TV rerun clip from a specific IP range. Serious business ya know!

Best wishes.

well as usual the republicans are at it again, all of these big companies are owned, operated, by repubs, and they are on there way to owning the dems. the american citizens are a bunch of gutless bed wetting neocon nancy boys. At least the europeans, and the koreans have demonstrations en mass when they don't like the way things are going. Over here the citizens just roll over and take it

This is absurd and will without a doubt be contested.

BOYCOTT VIACOM, Write to them and tell them since they re so invasive on privacy they will be boycotted.

I say everyone gets every home address of every VIACOM board member including the CEO and start sending lots of letters with no return address.

Find out as much personal info about the powers that be at VIACOM and post it on a website someplace for all to see. What food they eat, what videos they watch, any arrest records, etc... they want to invade people's privacy then I say give them a taste of their own medicine.

Google - Do what the White House did and 'lose' all the information in question.

Also, QUIT LOGGING ALL THIS INFORMATION TO BEGIN WITH!!

Very disturbing. The title of the article does not show the true nature of the lawsuit. In addition to going after users, VIACOM is attempting to use the court system to get ahold of critical Google and Youtube technologies and business processes. This a corporate raid, using the US court system, and any costs to the defendent are serendipitous for the plaintiff.

Youtube competes with Viacom for an audience to sell to advertisers, and Viacom wants those eyes back on the TV rather than on some computer. This is another dinosaur industry grasping at the legal system to recover it's business model.

http://www.viacom.com/OURBRANDS/Pages/default.aspx

check here for a convenient list of brands to boycott

Viacom's lawyers have made a lot of requests so that at least some are granted. Second, they are fishing in the data to make a "strong" case for their $1 Bill case; the bigger the case more lawyer/hrs charged....
Michael

Google's own Social Graph API service shows how YouTube account names can easily be associated with profiles on other Web sites (where users have chosen to do so, or even just where their friends have linked to them).

Notes/example here:
http://danbri.org/words/2008/07/03/359

Count me as one more person who will NEVER pay for a Viacom product again. [aka I will ENJOY downloading my movies from now on.]

Please YouTube/ Google appeal!

If Viacom is going to do some 'trick' with using the IP-Adresses to sue people since they have clicked on a link which led to a pirated film, and by clicking on that link you make a copy...

It doesn't mean you have actually seen the film, though you might get sued, although another user (providing the un-licensed work) offers the material!

If there was only a way to appeal myself, since I could get sued if YouTube/Google simply act in compliance with the ruling; although I did not agree with sending information like that to third parties!

Well if IP Addresses aren't really all that personally Identifiable, then why do we go through so much trouble trying to hide them and not let anyone know what that number is?

This is excellent news! Google SHOULD NOT have collected that data in the first place. I would love to see them pay for their idiocy now. Bad karma; it's gonna come back to bite you one day. Told ya!

Aw, darn, I have to boycott 365gay.com too? Lol. Why does Viacom own that? It doesn't seem like the company that own Nickelodeon would own 365gay.com.

what now? we're all going to get sued because we watched a supposedly copyrighted video on youtube?

How much was the judge paid by Viacom?

Some people are making idiotic comments about this hurting Viacom's image, or angering their clintel. Look, they're way beyond PR - they produce every good show out there. With a name like Viacom, it's no secret they've been an evil corporation bent on world domination for quite a while now anyway.

That being said, like music we are witnessing the downsizing of an industry, but the increase in consumption. Namely, more media available but companies will be unable to charge as much. Sites like Hulu.com and such seem to be the new current trend. Shows with very few ads, all online, on demand. It seems like a logical model to me, that could last in a similar form for a while. Clearly advertising was always the way to make money from entertainment, and still will be, but the way ads are integrated into that entertainment will need to change.

Yup, just one more reason why NOTHIGN should ever be done online without using a Privacy Service to mask your REAL IP address to the sites you deal with!

JT
http://www.ULtimate-Anonymity.com

Side note: The big concern with the movie industry is a lot stranger, because traditionally ads have not been integrated into movies, but certainly can and will be and are on those online sites like the one i just mentioned. Movie theatre sales still work, but I think we're going to see more 3D movies because if there's no huge motivation to go people would rather just find a way to illegally watch it at home.

this is just absurd!!!! what the heck is wrong with that judge!

Youtube sucks ass. It's a worthless site now because of all the fucking hollywood JEW companies shutting down videos online. Fuck you kike fags.

Judge must have been one of these old farts who's never touched a keyboard. Google will over turn the ruling in the appeals court.

With the "new" FISA bill on it's way to becoming "law", this entire debacle with Viacom shows exactly how badly the constitutional rights of Americans are being trampled and ripped away.

One by one.

OMG! This means the government will know i watched that "How to make a dirty bomb" video and that "Alkadia Recruitment" video to. Oh well.

Cheap tricks by viacom to get rich quick...

My letter to Viacom:

Dear Investor Relations:

As of 10:10AM this morning I am no longer an owner of Viacom stock. Upon hearing the details of the judges ruling today in your case against youtube and Google I have decided that Viacom is not a company that I can trust with my personal information, and I will be doing my best to boycott your products henceforth.

There is no benefit to require IP addresses and personal information of ALL youtube members to prove your case. I find this invasion of privacy to be demeaning and insulting.

Best regards,

Graham

Ugh...it should be (and probably is) illegal for Google to be forced to provide personally identifiable information to a company under which Google's users had no affiliation with nor agreed to any of their terms. Had I know that my information would be handed over to Viacom willy-nilly without my consent I would never have used YouTube in the first place.

frivolous nonsense! there is no need to hand over any personal records. welcome to the police state of the future. *&#! you judge

I don't know about you all. But i'm canceling my youtube account. Gov = bad news.

FUCK YOU VIACOM!!!!

Viacom already had my main YouTube account deleted for a video I posted. When I, rightfully, claimed that it was covered under fair use, Google just continued to send me the same form letter saying that I was wrong, without ever acknowledging anything I had written.

Neither company truly cares about the law or its users/viewers.

@Frank: "I think you would agree if it was your property being distributed without your consent and without compensation to you."

Fail. How else do you expect me to get famous? Duh, welcome to the 21st century. Enjoy your stay.

I sent a message to Viacom saying "you suck"

I agree with Casey and the others:

I am absolutely boycotting EVERY PRODUCT AND SERVICE that is sold by Viacom, or that generates any revenue for Viacom, until they drop this stupid lawsuit (and if they don't, I will forever boycott them, just like I've boycotted Nestle for 15+ years).

Viacom owns Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks, MTV, and more. I will personally download via the bittorrent network EVERY movie that I want to see made by their studios.

If they still own King's Dominion, I will boycott that also.

Seriously - there should be an organized boycott of this company.

Hey, Fu*kViacom, don't do that! That's what Viacom is aiming for! Cancel all Viacon involvement. Youtube is simply following the dumbass judge's orders.

Fantastic! It is good to see that ggogle's storing of personal data is working against google. Had they refrained from storing personal data to use people as marketing tools they would have nothing to worry about. Yup, if you are going to break the law, be sure to keep accurate records so it can be used against you.

Oh, great, now they'll know I've watched "Kitten Smokes on Toilet" seven thousand times!

Oh, the indignity!

This is pure lunacy... This will never come to pass, wake the fuk up!!

Do you really think Google won't appeal on this? That some puny district judge will make em yield and give up all this information?!?

I agree with this ruling we have to make sure that obsolete business models and copyrighted content are protected even if that means giving up our privacy. Just think if horse breeders and carriage manufactures had been allowed to sue automobile manufactures customers to recoup lost revenue maybe just maybe we’d have horses and carriages that could travel at 500 miles per hour by now. Think of the billions of dollars lost by horse breeders and carriage makers due to overwhelming consumer demand and preference for automobiles. If the executives in the horse and carriage business back then were smart they would have copyrighted all non-walking related forms of transportation there by guaranteeing the growth of their respective industries. Bottom line, consumers demand for a given product or service is not as important as protecting an industry unwilling to change in the face of technological paradigm shift.

@Kirk Davis,

Yeah, I guess your right. I will be closing my account still and, start over with another youtube account. I will just use software to change IP's. Or some other Methods.

Coming from a Programming aspect, this is a prime example of what freaks coders and anybody who knows things about programming, networks, etc. I remember reading books about Virus development dating back to the early 90s that went into depth saying. One day, things might change, that a virus will be justifiable depending on government regulations and wars. Look at us now..this is fucked up! Its not just about YouTube, its the fact that this will be one of many where the gov will fuck users and privacy in the short future.

Once again, Viacom fails to realize that having those clips on YouTube on served to PROMOTE their shows. I don't know how many times I've watched a great Daily Show or Colbert (Viacom also) episode and wanted to share a segment with a friend. Now maybe a friend watching one of those clips will like it enough to become an avid fan and watch it regularly which equals higher ratings which eventually equals more revenue for advertisers. But instead, most of the time, I go to Comedy Central's site and can't even find the clips I'm looking for or they've been removed. One day they'll get it. This is just like a replay of the mp3 phenomenon when it first hit mainstream. If they would only accept this is the preferred medium and it works, everyone would be happy. Why not make the clips available or implement a special ad on any videos tagged with a show's name linking back to more information about the show and air times? Heaven forbid they come to an amicable solution.

@sebu Governments should stay out of the market, commerce, and let the Market, and business solve it naturally. We will never learn or come to practical solutions with government involvement!

@iZealot

Yeah, I guess your right. I will be closing my account still and, start over with another youtube account. I will just use software to change IP's. Or some other Methods.

Coming from a Programming aspect, this is a prime example of what freaks coders and anybody who knows things about programming, networks, etc. I remember reading books about Virus development dating back to the early 90s that went into depth saying. One day, things might change, that a virus will be justifiable depending on government regulations and wars. Look at us now..this is fucked up! Its not just about YouTube, its the fact that this will be one of many where the gov will fuck users and privacy in the short future.

Avoid their products..

Google:
List of assets owned by Viacom

Or here's a link..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Viacom

Welcome to the Bush Nation, where

ALL YOUR PRIVACY BELONG TO US!

(sic)

lets see... not personally identifiable they say? IP Addy, plus time & date, plus a quick call to the ISP, and viola. My 16 year old son could do this in his sleep. Judges are friggin 100yr old clueless morons who need to get "Edumacated"

Viacom are jerks. Hunting down your own customers seems like a nice strategy, doesn't it? I bet they'll start prosecuting as many people as they can once they've gotten their filthy hands on all that user data.

It's another fine example à la "metallica vs. napster". It means that Viacom doesn't get "it" and will never get it. They should have bought shares in YouTube instead or released software like 'the movies'. Much better strategic move: keep on creating content, let users have fun and build up a finetuned customer database.
It doesn't matter if Viacom succeeds in taking down YouTube (if it ever comes to that). If internet history has so far taught anything, it is that if A is taken down, users will simply go to B, C, D, etc., the servers of which may be located anywhere. The question then is: do the laws of that country apply to that information, or those of the US? Welcome to the internet.

Quick question,

Does anyone know if this court ruling makes youtube required to hand over all that sh*t immediately? Or how long until it goes into effect?
Thanks in advance!

First of all.. I vehemently disagree with the judge's bass-ackwards ruling and feel that Google should appeal this post-haste. Second of all.. if Google hadn't been keeping myriad records of everyone on YouTube for the last umpteen years we wouldn't even have this hellish situation. This can't fly though, Google needs to appeal NOW.

I just called Judge Stanton's office at 1-212-805-0252, and spoke with one if his law clerks named Sam. I told him I felt it was a violation of my privacy for the Judge to force Google to turn over my username, IP, and private viewing habits, since I watch a lot of political videos.

Please, please, call right now and politely let the judge know he is violating your privacy with this ruling. No third party should have a right to know which political videos you watch, or any other videos for that matter. Viacom can get what they need without usernames and IPs attached.

Judge Stanton's office: 1-212-805-0252

This ruling will compromise my privacy in many levels.

Lawsuit in 3...2...1

No really... I am on the phone with a lawyer right now.

This ruling will put me in a compromising position.

@ I just called, you should too

Most importantly, what did the lady say after you spoke? Was there a click on the other end?

I agree this is bullshittt... Their goes my information of me watching white teens shaking ass on youtube during my lunch break.

In the words of Marion Barry "The B*tch Set me up!"

YouTube is a free service, if you give "immensely personal information" to a free service, you deserve to feel insecure. And stupid.

okay, let me just clear my soul. i'm sorry i watched a clip that had retards rocking to a thrash band. i shouldn't have opened the clip titled "hardcore retards." I'm sorry man, so is phil. please don't put me in jail viacom.

Wow what will the next step be? Hey Viacom maybe you should sue all of the You Tube users who ever watched the copyrighted material .. opps maybe they are ... are you on the List?

With all of this talk about the judge getting it wrong, and with Viacom being evil, why aren't people talking about the big G?

Why did Google KEEP this personally identifying data? It is of no competitive advantage to them, when compared to the same data blinded of all identifying information.

Sure... keep the IP address for 24 hours for debugging purposes. Store all data from your logfiles in perpetuity? It's as if they wanted this to happen.

Google is just as responsible for this travesty. Had they destroyed the data, or made it useless outside of their walls, like any responsible company should, there would be nothing to seek out with this fishing expedition.

Instead they had the hubris to say "trust us, we're not evil" and "we have your privacy in mind", when the opposite is clearly true.

Ok, this is getting way to far... governments, judges, $$$ companies STOP invading EVERYONE privacy just for some stupid $$$ arguments.

I can understand it for terrorists >AT BEST<, but FOR MONEY ? COME ON!

Enough of this bullshit already!

Because Viacom is jewish extremist owned from the top down and this is the type of shit they've been pulling for the past 5-8 years.

As usual the stupid Americans can't figure it out.

This is my letter to Viacom:

Good morning, and good riddance. I just recently had the pleasure of reading an article regarding your lawsuit against Google's Youtube service and found it highly unethical, supremely instrusive, and in more ways than I have fingers, illegal. I am fed up with big business (like yourselves) pushing your consumers heads into the toilet of yesterday rather than adapting to the technology age like a smart business should. You, Microsoft, the RIAA, the MPAA, and a couple more unmentionables are doing little more than causing a severe dragnet and a full frontal assault on the US legal system(honestly now, our legal system is damaged enough as it is). You are not damaging us, the consumer; what you're effectively doing is turning your company into a leper. No one in their right mind will want to touch you for fear of repercutions or proprietary chastity. Youtube is in essence, a promotion tool. You said yourself that your videos were placed online for promotion only, and now you seek blood because you feel as if you've lost control of your own content. You haven't lost control, and contrary to popular business theory, you haven't lost money either. Companies like yourself can project future profits and count that as money until you're blue and bloated, but the simple fact remains: You haven't made a dime until you've made the dime. All this talk coming from companies that aren't doing as well as they thought with a certain product, crying wolf because they didn't make their over zealous profit prediction, I don't feel sorry for you. Youtube did not do this to you. Google Videos did not do this to you. YOU did this to you! Have you actually watched Mtv in the last 10 years? I want to know where the music has gone. You see, it's not the consumer that's destroying your profits, it's you that's providing shoddy programming. This embarrasment does not give you the right (legal or otherwise) to destroy everyone who has ever logged in to YouTube. And before you even begin to think of a retort, just remember when AOL leaked 'anonymous' search results onto the internet. Unskilled analysts and regular joe's could with a few searches figure out who some of these 'anonymous' search query's belonged to. It was all over the news. So if you think you're saving yourself by requesting that YouTube(Google) hand over to you all the private information they harbor, or if you think that you'll be saving the identities of those whose information you request, you're dead wrong on all accounts, and you'll find out. People are screaming boycott because people are pissed because Viacom, you are wrong. You think your Q2 earnings look bad on paper? Just wait until Q3 Viacom. Originally I was going to submit this through your contact page until I realized it only allowed 500 characters, but I'm glad I ended up on this page originally because now I have a list of all the media you own, which was presently not known to me. I'll be sure to avoid them like the plague. Those screaming boycott may not adhere to their own ideals, but I certainly will not in the future participate in any event that promotes you or brings you money. You have lost a customer for life, no matter what the outcome of this frivolous lawsuit.

--- How can people still be arguing that The US isn't a fascest state.

Its getting really close to Soviet Russia.

In Soviet America, internet Googles you!

viacom cannot sue everyone that watched a copyrighted video because it would be half the country! GOOGLE APPEAL NOW!!!!!

viacom cannot sue everyone that watched a copyrighted video because it would be half the country! GOOGLE APPEAL NOW!!!!!

Help me out, here, if you can, I've been trying to think of all the ways in which ViaCON could use this information to devious ends. This list freely gives them market research on demographics of potential customers, something they would otherwise have to pay to obtain; with it, they can better market movies and television and commercials because they now know what particular customers like and dislike. This information could give them, or their constituents or lobbyists, valuable insight into and thus control over the coming election via political party video popularity (perhaps the same way polls do, but just consider if this gives slightly better insight than a poll). Lawsuits against copyright infringers have already been mentioned. Trends in questionable video views could be reported to investigative authorities and agencies.

Understand, folks, that information is a new form of currency. The value of the dollar has declined, but the value of information is rising. Viacom has, in essence, raided Google's vault and pickpocketted this sparkling rich commodity.

www.youku.com everyone, show that viacom can't go international because the rules don't apply in china and show that viacom can't completely resolve the problem at its source

Hello world, Ive had this horrible epiphany of the future I must share. There will be the industrial age, the technology age, THE INFORMATION AGE(my fav), Then DUN DUN DUNNNNN.... The Stone Age.... Information will cost you and big.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

I'll let this link speak for itself:

http://smallprint.netzoo.net/viacom-work-for-us-we-own-you/

@Snarky -- OUTSTANDING point. Viacom claimed it didn't have to pay writers for web broadcasts because it was strictly promotional and had no value.

Most excellent.

Also, if the court holds that IP addresses are not personally identifying, doesn't that pretty much sink most of the music piracy suits?

This is why I have a laptop and use open wireless in parking lots.

Can anyone find email addresses to the big names heading up Viacom? I can't seem to find anything other than the lame comment section on their contact page. They limit it to 500 characters so that people like us won't blast them.

Let's put our resources together and get some direct email addresses to the CEO's and the board members.

If someone hacked Youtube (or Google's) server and erased those files, Viacom would be pisced!

This is crazy. Talk about the "Land of the Free" eh. When something like this happens in a country like China, the entire world would jump down its throat and will call in the human rights organizations.

However, when this happens in the "Land of the Free", it's all about the rights of those multi million dollar corporates.

Human rights is truly an American "dream", and it's just that, a dream.

sounds like a good idea. sorry i posted twice up there dont know why that happened

@Mag Li: Humans rights are indeed a dream to us, but to corporate elites and political powerhungry hungry hippos, human rights are a nightmare. They get in the way of profit.

is this attack covering all people that ever watched a youtube video embedded on another website?

Can we boycott these nazis already. I cant believe were just standing by and letting this happen...

Just emailed by disgust to Viacom via their contact form.
http://www.viacom.com/contact

Just a note, I believe a Copyright Infringment case was recently lose because the Judge ruled that the Memory of the server should have been saved. Google should not have logs past a month for 2, but the court system rules against a defendent because those logs could not be produced, I think Google is is caught and hopefully an appeal will fix this.

There's something almost ironic about all this. A quick search reveals that www.addictinggames.com is a part of the Viacom empire. I can't believe for one minute that not a single game there is copyright infringing somebody esle. And, if you compare and contrast both that site's and Youtube's ToS, you find that they are nigh on identically worded - not least because that wording comes from the DCMA? ANyhow, just thought those here on Wired may feel inclined to stop Viacom profiting from their games, if any of them are to be found on addicting games.

Boy this sure is stupid. They want text files when it should be the video files. They are asking for private info of EVERY user when they have no proof of any wrongdoing by EVERY user. Sounds like someones gone phishing. Thanks Judge Clueless, I'm sure Mugabe and his thugs would LOVE you.

I think this is way out of hand.I mean, 4 terabytes of logs with personal information?

Joe - http://www.LeetWebmasters.com

Maybe I am missing the boat here but did I not just read between the lines and notice that Viacom does not want the info to sue users but to find out which of their competitors is getting the largest amount of hits so that they can overtly outwit their competitors and wipe them out financially by creating similar TV shows and movies and videos to attract viewers. Don't just look at the scare tactics against individuals, they are trying to kill the competition. Smart move on their part. Google is a player in this game too, they get the new advertising dollars for all the new shows that Viacom will promote. hmmmm. I love the game. Now for the final note, who started this hoax????

LostFan wrote:

> is this attack covering all people that ever watched a youtube video embedded on another website?

Yes, because the embedded videos still make a network request back to the YouTube servers.

"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."

Viacom wants the data because it is a treasure trove of information pertinent to their marketing department.

Under the Constitution, we have the right to Life, Security, and Property. This infringes on my Security right. I already have people trying to steal my identity, and NOW Viacom is going to get personal records, my IP address, and we all know what you can do with an IP address.

AMERIKA!!!

Shit, they are so many assets and sub-companies owned by Viacom, it will be hard to boycott everything. That $$$ company is like a frakking evil medusa with tentacles everywhere.

Thanks a lot Shawn! by the way did you guys look at viacoms brands? THEY OWN EVERYBODY

Maybe we should all rickroll Viacom.
I would hate to have to track down all of the folks who have viewed that vid.
And who is behind Viacom? Is the gov trying to set a precedent here?

Was this judge drunk? Surely this will be repealed by a higher court! He obviously has no clue about how the internet works. Giving Viacom this sensitive, PRIVATE information opens the door for all types of privacy violations. Having a person's IP opens them up to a plethora of information about a person, without any prior consent. Do your copyright rights have precedence over my privacy? What about the people who didn't access any of those videos - why do you get their information as well? I see a class action suit in Viacom's future - unless a more intelligent judge over-rules this decision.

Google should comply but not in a hard disk format, give them the 4 Terabyte listing from a batch printer, let Viacom scan it and process it, and the courts look for page number 458,859,835

The average text page consists of only of about 5 Kb of data....

That's only 860 million pages ...

this is unconstitutional.
they want to see what ip addresses was suppose to be watching hulo instead of
youtube.
in this day and age information is asset
viacom will probably sell this info to
advertisers, market/media/social cyber
research.

this is all kurt loders idea his chip hasn't expired yet?

@Viacom sucks: *Applause* That's a sweet idea. Just absolutely bury them with junk. While they're at it, they should hire a cryptographer to encode it and then convert the encrypted data to mark space, 1's & 0's. Gonna have to kill a rainforest or two for this one, though.

I'm watching the stock for Viacom and the news must be hitting the market because its dropping. When or if Viacommie get the private data. When do individuals ban together to start a Class Action Suit by the millions against Viacom and its advertisers and tentacle companies for identity theft, invasion of privacy, improper acquisition of personal records? When do you start boycotting your local video stores, grocery stores, gas stations who have video stores, so on and so on. Viacom may be a giant but they fall harder and take years to get back on their feet and if this can be done imagine the possibilities for Google to be able to buy a failing giant since Viacom's stock value will be so low that a corner store could buy them up. Lets push for driving them out of business, not just slapping them on the wrist. Lets promote that other media giants position themselves to move in and perform a hostile takeover of Viacom. Shoot the stock holders where it counts and they will dump fast. Just a thought anyway.

The judge was way too old (something like 81 years) to understand anything about this modern case. Was this judge picked up by Viacom or what ?

Ding dong ... the witch is dead!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Google alone in this? U