User privacy until the data "accidentally" gets let out on the web somehow but hackers or a rogue employee.
Thanks...Rob
Mickey Blue Eyes
· 1 year ago
If "IP addresses identify a computer, not the person using it. It’s not possible to determine your identity solely based on your IP address." All they have to do then is subpena the ISP to find out who you are and then say, "while we can't say that you were the one who did it, it was your computer which was your property and in your possession and since possession is 9/10 of the law, we can safely say that it was you who did it. So give us half of everythign you own or we'll sue and take all of it."
This is the same myopic thug tactics that the RIAA takes. They don't have to prove that anyone accessessed the files, but because you left file sharing enabled on your Win XP computer, you are automatically guilty.
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
I don't know how that works, exactly. My guess would be that anything spoken about in court, particularly to do with indirectly-affected users, must be kept only as it pertains to that case. I don't think Viacom could take the IPs recorded by YouTube and then subpoena Internet Service Providers to hand over IDs.
Furthermore, ISP subscribers only give you the people who pay for the Internet service. If you pay for monthly access, and a family member or roommate or whoever is the culprit, you're liable. Unless you can prove it was the other person, and not you.
This brings me back to that "hugely messy for all" phrase I used in my original post.
Jeremy Zweig
· 1 year ago
Paul - your first point there is exactly right. Any data about users that Viacom receives would only be able to be used in the current case. We'd never be able to use it to pursue individual users, nor would we want to.
Fortunately, discussions between the parties are ongoing, and it appears that Viacom, Google and the class action group will be able to figure out a way to transmit this data without user names or IP addresses.
-Jeremy Zweig Vice President, Viacom Media and Editorial
selin
· 1 year ago
hello ım selin
Denz
· 1 year ago
There is still no word over what happens with regards IP addresses - if it even gets that far - from other nations, in particular places like the EU where privacy laws would be breached left, right and centre. One wrong move from either of these companies is going to end in a deluge of legal threats. The situation both companies are now in is not good for either of them, and in some ways makes their spat over copyright seem trivial.
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
True, it does seem more effort than its worth. I am of the mind that videos posted to YouTube help Viacom's business rather than hurt it. As I've said in numerous past posts (say that five times fast), copyright law needs to be edited to make for a more consumer-friendly environment.
It's really the whole idea of a convoluted civil law system where the average person breaks the law numerous times without even realizing it.
The problem here is that Viacom's efforts may hinder YouTube's business somewhat, at least in the short term. (If Viacom gets what it wants, I should add.) YouTube still isn't a hugely profitable business. Google needs to have as few barriers as possible to grow with this particular property. Otherwise, if Viacom gets a solid edge on this matter, things won't look so rosy for the average Web user, who, let's face it, has consumed quite a bit of material that technically infringes on copyright law as it stands today.
David
· 1 year ago
"Is this a bad omen for the video site, it’s parent company, or the users?"
The word is "its", not "it's".
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
Thanks for the catch! Edited accordingly.
Ling
· 1 year ago
Why can't Viacom explain to Google exactly what kind of information or results it hopes to get out of the data, and then ask Google to supply it with the results, rather than asking for the raw data? End of the day, if they think Google is lying or trying to cover up, they can still go after the raw data again.
PaulGlazowski
· 1 year ago
Well, Viacom would presumably want as much data as it can get. The more the better, from Viacom's perspective.
Mark Z
· 1 year ago
have you ever considered that this article is the exact public outcry the courts may have intended to spawn? let's think about the direct consequences to me, goog/youtube, and viacomm:
1) i won't view copyrighted materials on youtube anymore for fear of being sued. 2) for google, the above statement has the result that they have less liability to viacomm in the future. people will self-censor their viewing habits and be more hesitant to view protected materials. youtube has largely failed in taking down protected material and until there's an algorithm to detect copyrighted material, the way to censor cheaply is to instill fear in the viewers. 3) viacomm's copyrighted materials are not posted on youtube as much and they can profit more.
Patrick
· 1 year ago
Is it wrong that I'd like to see the EU tear up Viacom for it's lawyers ignoring privacy concerns? The "agreement" that IP addresses are not identifiable makes Viacom's case sound like it starts with deception, so the normal paranoia has been handed a seed. Everybody's heard of the RIAA's approach to legal culpability.
Information with identifiers in place of IP addresses has been done before, by Google, no less when it was marketing search history. For statistical analysis, it makes no difference if it's 24.12.24.12 or user32123 unless you want the IP address for some reason, in which case you'd ask the judge for it, and they did. These "agreements between lawyers" don't mean a thing without the judge, though I could see wanting to set a precedent for providing such information for future legal actions.
Hopefully YouTube/Google will learn the lesson Microsoft and various other have about keeping uselessly dated information too long. Do logs from 2000 have any value to anyone other than a plaintiff suing them for something or other?
I use YouTube daily for non-commercial stuff, I don't watch television over the net, I have a DVR tuner card, why would I bother? Come check me out. Spend lots of money doing it please.
All Comments
http://www.VideoFetcher.com/viacom.cfm
Thanks...Rob
This is the same myopic thug tactics that the RIAA takes. They don't have to prove that anyone accessessed the files, but because you left file sharing enabled on your Win XP computer, you are automatically guilty.
Furthermore, ISP subscribers only give you the people who pay for the Internet service. If you pay for monthly access, and a family member or roommate or whoever is the culprit, you're liable. Unless you can prove it was the other person, and not you.
This brings me back to that "hugely messy for all" phrase I used in my original post.
Fortunately, discussions between the parties are ongoing, and it appears that Viacom, Google and the class action group will be able to figure out a way to transmit this data without user names or IP addresses.
-Jeremy Zweig
Vice President, Viacom Media and Editorial
It's really the whole idea of a convoluted civil law system where the average person breaks the law numerous times without even realizing it.
The problem here is that Viacom's efforts may hinder YouTube's business somewhat, at least in the short term. (If Viacom gets what it wants, I should add.) YouTube still isn't a hugely profitable business. Google needs to have as few barriers as possible to grow with this particular property. Otherwise, if Viacom gets a solid edge on this matter, things won't look so rosy for the average Web user, who, let's face it, has consumed quite a bit of material that technically infringes on copyright law as it stands today.
The word is "its", not "it's".
1) i won't view copyrighted materials on youtube anymore for fear of being sued.
2) for google, the above statement has the result that they have less liability to viacomm in the future. people will self-censor their viewing habits and be more hesitant to view protected materials. youtube has largely failed in taking down protected material and until there's an algorithm to detect copyrighted material, the way to censor cheaply is to instill fear in the viewers.
3) viacomm's copyrighted materials are not posted on youtube as much and they can profit more.
Information with identifiers in place of IP addresses has been done before, by Google, no less when it was marketing search history. For statistical analysis, it makes no difference if it's 24.12.24.12 or user32123 unless you want the IP address for some reason, in which case you'd ask the judge for it, and they did. These "agreements between lawyers" don't mean a thing without the judge, though I could see wanting to set a precedent for providing such information for future legal actions.
Hopefully YouTube/Google will learn the lesson Microsoft and various other have about keeping uselessly dated information too long. Do logs from 2000 have any value to anyone other than a plaintiff suing them for something or other?
I use YouTube daily for non-commercial stuff, I don't watch television over the net, I have a DVR tuner card, why would I bother? Come check me out. Spend lots of money doing it please.