Wow, this really is disgusting. What a stupid, poorly thought out decision. What GOOD could possibly come of this? Other than being used to track people, the IP does NOTHING to help their cause. I don't see what the Judge *thought* he was doing to help?
Aren't Judges supposed to have reasoning and deduction skills?! What an idiot.
I'm sure the good guys at Google will do everything they can to make Viacom's life difficult for us :)
Rob
· 1 year ago
Also just read on the link to the Google blog post that the IP address IS considered personally identifiable information in the EU, does that mean Viacom can be given those too?
Egbert
· 1 year ago
This is so ridiculous!!!
Why did the court give them the IP`s of those who watched the video? Perhaps they even did not know that is was copyright protected.
If they can be held responsible for just watching them, it would mean that if NBC would broadcast a copyright protected clip, all people watching NBC at that moment could be held responsible for that!!!!!
RIDICULOUS!!!!!!
Dean
· 1 year ago
The only "good" I can see coming out of this decision is more and more revenue for big companies like Viacom who basically pay-off our government to get personal information about all of us HANDED TO THEM. Handed to them like drug-dealer handing off a bag of drugs, all secretive and sly-like. Because they know it's morally wrong, and AGAINST THE LAW. I view this decision as this: Say the cops know where money is hidden in your grandma's purse. Using their powers of persuasion, they legally break into her house under the guise of "reasonable cause", saying they had a tip there was stolen merchandise in the home. Then they steal the money in her purse, and give it to a drug-dealer for a nominal fee. THAT'S how I view this: crooked cops stealing and making money doing it. It's like Viacom payed off the government to purusade the judge to rule in their favor. Essentially, the government is stealing the infromation from YouTube and selling it to Viacom. the whole thing fucking stinks of foul-play. No judge is THAT stupid. No, this smells of illegality. By ordering the personal info to be given up to Viacom, for all intents and purposes - the judge stole it from Youtube. He violated at least one act that I know of by doing this. No one can convince me that our own government, the most powerful government in the world with limitless resources at its disposal, did NOT know that this order was in violation of V.P.P.A., or other lesser acts......"Good"?? The only good is for Viacom and companies who will also do this dirty-dealing, because eventually they will use this information to corner us into buying something by taking away all other options but their own, use it to remind us of our little financial mistakes we made along the way, use it to remind us that we HAVE NO MORE RIGHTS and we better just play along, and that they can possibly use our information to sell it to anyone who wants to cause us harm - to the HIGHEST BIDDER. THAT'S that only "good" that will come of this, to fortify the ability for the ultra-rich to suck every last penny from the lower-middle class and the poverty stricken, and then kick us to the curb when we have nothing left to give up by BLACK-LISTING US to any and every financial instituion on Earth. AND possible employment. As it stands now, some companies do CREDIT CHECKS on applicants. It ought to be against the law to do so. Some people run into bad money situations through absolutely no fault of their own, but appears as if it was their fault on a credit report (identity theft, crooked lovers, ect....). As we know already, one bad move is forever encased and on display for all to see in our credit scores/reports. This "transfer" (theft) of private information of American citizens from Viacom will only suppliment the already CALLOUS system of credit reporting. You can't make one wrong move in this country, or you're as good as toast forever. Selling our info just adds another way for the rich to FUCK US OVER, and get rid of any "undesirables" in their way while they're on vacation, driving to work, or moving into a neighborhood. They want the poor OUT, so knowing everything they can about everyone on Earth helps them in their efforts to live a imperfect-Human FREE lifestyle ("imperfect-Human" means "NOT filthy stinking rich) Oh, and There's nothing wrong with being rich, just being rich and hating everyone who's NOT, is what I can't stand. And that's what Viacom stands for: plowing anyone ever who can't keep up with their financial power. FUCK VIACOM.
Mr
· 4 months ago
TLDNR
Billy
· 1 year ago
Haha, yeah, because judge's get "hired" only for the cases they're good at. Oh, wait, no they don't. You should probably brush up on exactly how the legal system works there, Stan, before you write posts about it.
Gal
· 1 year ago
Perhaps YOU SHOULD take your own advice there Billy! You wear your ignorance well.
mrshl
· 1 year ago
The judge has not "destroyed privacy". He's entered an order that's likely to be overturned or severely limited on appeal.
Is he wrong? Yes. Is he catastrophically wrong? Nah. What really happens will be decided on appeal.
Diego
· 1 year ago
Hey, wont you post about the announce of the release dates of Opensocial for Brazilian Orkut Users? Brazil has 53% of the users of Orkut. I think opensocial will change a lot the way brazilians deal with internet!
Why did the court give them the IP`s of those who watched the video? Perhaps they even did not know that is was copyright protected.
If they can be held responsible for just watching them, it would mean that if NBC would broadcast a copyright protected clip, all people watching NBC at that moment could be held responsible for that!!!!!
RIDICULOUS!!!!!!
Dan Thornton
· 1 year ago
My response was to contact Viacom, and inform them that from this point onwards I will attempt to boycott all of their products (of which their are many), and to check if any upcoming films I was going to go and see are owned by Viacom... I won't download them illegally, won't discuss them, and as far as I'm concerned, they won't exist.
I am, however, far more likely to go through the hassle of masking my IP address when using any entertainment service.
And encourage people to focus on boycotting Viacom, rather than spending time worrying about Twitter reliability, or how many social networks they belong to...
Gal
· 1 year ago
Good Idea Dan. I second the motion.
Guy
· 1 year ago
As far as making your IP address masked in an entertainment web site, that will be a nearly impossible task due to the videos being mostly played in javascript based flv player. When you have the javascript enabled to play the clip, the flv player will not act like your browser and instead it will directly connect to the web site, bypassing the proxy, and thus revealing your real IP. http://www.freeproxy.ru/en/free_proxy/faq/anti_...
also F@#$ Viacom
Gal
· 1 year ago
I could be wrong but as I understand it you can configure TOR to intercept other applications, such as java.
lunarsight
· 1 year ago
I would also find all official channels of Viacom-owned companies on Youtube, and go through giving all the uploaded videos the minimum rating.
I think it's about time Viacom was reminded that without viewers, they are nothing.
Chris Tew
· 1 year ago
Seeing Viacom get a step ahead in this case is not good news. While I don't agree with the piracy on YouTube it is pushing the industry in the right direction by forcing content creators to catch up with technology and distribute content fairly online.
Mickey Blue Eyes
· 1 year ago
If IP addresses is not personally-identifying information like the judge and Google says, then IP addresses cannot be used by Viacom or RIAA in their lawsuits. But then again, judges have ruled that RIAA does not have to prove damages, i.e., prove that anyone downloaded files from your hard drive or that you downloaded files from someone else's hard drive, to win their case. The RIAA (and now Viacom) just have to say that you are guilty in their opinion, and the court will rubber stamp agree with them.
Kane Cable
· 1 year ago
"asking for this data and saying “they’re not enough to identify the user†is completely stupid, because little by little Viacom will get the rest of the data they need - from the ISPs"
Let's not beat around the bush, Viacom will just simply go to the ISP's and say give me your names, account details, addresses and logs for these IP numbers or we'll sue you too (which they have for homeland security purposes).
Google have just aided and abetted Viacom to come and fine you by giving them the only key to finding out about your address. Sure their argument is that some wont be found out, but the rest? Who cares, Google doesnt.
Greg Rollett
· 1 year ago
Screw Viacom. Quote of the day. Damn commie bastards!
QUOTE: The court's protective order stipulates that data turned over to Viacom by Google must be used for the sole purpose of proving Viacom's claim against Google that YouTube is a hotbed of pirated video content, the sources said. Viacom will not have direct access to the YouTube user data, the source said. Access is restricted to outside counsel and experts. ... The source added that Viacom is looking into user anonymization technology, so that even the low-level personal data that could be exposed--say, YouTube user handles that contain a person's real name--are is not accessible to anyone.
Additionally, the source explained that the judge's decision cannot be directly applied to any of the other online video sites, from Veoh to DailyMotion. Since the case has been handled in a trial court, not a court of appeals, the decision will not be used as precedent.
PR NY
· 1 year ago
Lets call for a ban on Viacom
If they try to misuse this info
That, and the possibility of massive countersuits, will immediately stop their ambitions.
The bottom line is that they still need the consumers, if the consumers get angry, they will die a slow death
What?
· 4 months ago
No offense, dude, but you might as well ban clouds, or cheese, grass, or the sun. They'll be around either way.
BillyWarhol
· 1 year ago
That is Scary Poop* I was trying to think who was the Big Cheeze @ Viacom - i think it's Sumner Redstone - initially i thought Barry Diller*
Yeah fortunately with Web2.0 + the Internet there is some Strength in Numbers so that the Little People (don't know any myself being a BigShot) can Fight back against this kinda Crap*
Still if Martha Stewart can go to Prison for doing what every other Dickwad on Wall Street + Bay Street does on a Daily basis then U certainly can't Trust these Clowns*
;)) Peace*
Ben Godfrey
· 1 year ago
I'm finding it difficult to work out what the jurisdiction of this order is. The point above about the EU treating an IP as personal data seems very relevant, but a quick skim read of the judgement document didn't reveal any limits, simply that Google should copy the data on to some hard drives and ship 'em to Viacom.
Jon
· 1 year ago
I agree that this is a dangerous precedent. However, I'm wondering on what basis Mashable claims that Viacom could go after individual users who watched Viacom content on YouTube. While content providers have used this information to sue people using Bittorrent and other file sharing apps, do you know of any precedent where content owners have sued individual users who watched copyrighted material on video sites like YouTube? My guess is that such a case would be much weaker than the cases against file sharers which the content providers have mostly gone after people for SHARING, not watching. Anyway, it would be nice to cite what evidence you have for making claims that Viacom could "sue you." The EFF doesn't seem to mention it and neither does Google. Is this based on your understanding of the law?
Anyway, I agree it was a horrible decision by the court.
LeonWestbrook
· 1 year ago
A good thing about this: It may finally force people to use other services.
As a youtube content creator and avid viewer I will be boycotting all of viacom's products.
CountRob
· 1 year ago
Because it's your fault for watching a f***ing video on the internet.
LiquidSilver
· 1 year ago
True, and it's your brain's fault for brain farting.
janie
· 1 year ago
This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me worry about the future of the Internet and my desire to remain safe on it from people who would seek to intrude on my privacy for whatever bad reason they may have because there's never a good reason. This is an example of why I never use my real name or personal info while on the web. It doesn't mean I'm up to no good,it just means I have a right to my privacy and to protect myself from people who are up to no good. Don't think this kind of crap will stop at Youtube videos, folks.
Elle
· 1 year ago
How is watching a copyrighted video on YouTube any different than going to a friend's house and watching a show they recorded on their VCR? The watchers' guilt (if it exists at all) is minimal compared to the guilt of the person who posted the copyrighted video in the first place. Go after those people, Viacom; it will be more successful and help you retain at least a small bit of dignity and respect.
It'd be nice if someone could find his home phone number or that of his daughter or wife (Susan Helen Stanton is the daughter, Phoebe R. Stanton is the wife). Let's see how he likes his personal information spread around. Repost.
Was he wrong? YES. Was he catastrophically wrong? YES. Make him PAY.
Matt
· 1 year ago
Hey will this affect like everyone? Even people outside the US? The judge's head should roll for such an act of idiocy btw.
Michael
· 1 year ago
I totally hate these anti internet companies and stupid people that dont know nothing about the net. How could we fight these idiots I am kind of scared to use youtube now.
websalad
· 1 year ago
Eveyone who uses the internet has a responsibility to ensure that the values we hold dear remain a part of the web.
When you upload a video to youtube, you have to tick a box saying that you have the right to upload the video. So surely it should be the uploaders, not the veiwers who are in the wrong
Sav
· 1 year ago
But since the videos didn't say this is copyright material and there was no disclosure for users watching this material, can they not appeal in the court? I feel there might be an avenue here but Viacom can definitely make a point. This is similar to Metallica going after that dude from Napster. Sucks!
agriya
· 1 year ago
FLV player component that comes in 5 flavors, provides a mechanism to play back YouTube videos, and can also display preview images.
Cookiemouse
· 1 year ago
This decision is a blatant invasion of my privacy and I shall be complaining to both the European and UK data protection agencies. No US judge has the right to my private data. I am a European citizen and do not wish to be snooped on by US corporations. Many children use YouTube, including members of my own family, and they need to be protected from the likes of Judge Louis Stanton, who obviously never studied human rights when he was at law school.
Jason
· 1 year ago
Stan, I think you may be raising some fear among the audience unnecessarily here. The main reason Viacom wants user viewing data is to compare the amount of copyrighted material that's been viewed, as opposed to the amount of 'amateur' content. They want to be able to prove that the copyrighted material is the bulk of YouTube's business. They are looking to find numbers in aggregate. I seriously doubt Viacom would see much point in suing a whole bunch of individual users - they sue where the money is - Google.
Speculator
· 1 year ago
What power Viacom will have with this information!
The guys who posted those Anonymous videos against Scientology, for example-- their identities will be exposed. There must be people in Viacom who are Scientologists.
They can blackmail any politicians who watched something scandalous...
LulzAtThis
· 1 year ago
Here is how I think this will all end. Google will be forced to shut down. The Internet will perish, and the government will have you use Government Watched Computers (GWCs) to use the new internet. These GWCs has all the information saved on the hard drive, and EVERYTHING you look at will be saved. Along with this, the government will go a step further and use constant phone tapping. Then that will lead to the end of the digital world because porn will then be sold on the streets as if it was a drug. Then I will learn how to live in a log cabin in the middle of COMPLETE NOWHERE so I can farm and stuff and live off the earth like the old old times. God, the world is taking one step back!
Pat
· 1 year ago
Everyone is blaming the wrong person!
Lets not blame the judge -- lets blame Youtube.
If Youtube wasn't so busy trying invade our privacy themselves, the IPaddress data would not be stored. The tracking watched videos can easily be stored in a way that is not directly connected back to your account and better yet only kept for 6 months.
Blame Youtube for even having the data available in the first place.
Cookiemouse
· 1 year ago
Speculator is right. A lot of people will suffer as a result of this massive breach of privacy. Yesterday I made an official complaint to the UK ICO. Perhaps we should also remind ourselves of how many children are using YouTube. What if a Viacom employee is a pedophile and uses the info to groom kids for sex or something much worse?
Evil Lydia
· 1 year ago
I miss the old wild wild west.
Chill Out
· 1 year ago
When someone actually gets sued for watching a copyrighted video on YouTube, this will become a big deal. Until then, there will be a useless list of numbers on paper somewhere that will likely serve no purpose... *yawn*
Let's get real, here: Expecting to be completely anonymous and untraceable simply because you're on the internet is ridiculous. There are already thousands of records / files / papers floating around in the world with your REALLY personal information on it -- the internet is Fort Knox by comparison.
Privacy is a big issue and I agree this judge is dumb, but seriously some people are taking this to an extreme degree. It's annoying. Just look at Cookiemouse's post. How can you say that a lot of people are really going to *suffer* because of this? Do you know what suffering is? And child-molesters don't need a list of IP addresses to about their ways.
Wake up, and let's focus on the things that are ACTUALLY causing people to suffer.
hnb
· 1 year ago
To Illustrate how stupid Viacom's corporate suits are, I simply need to state this :
A company that needs viewers to make money and gets FREE ADVERTISING for their content by YouTube, is trying to sue the same private individuals who were watching PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CONTENT that they (Viacom) own the rights for, capable of actually driving more sales
Now how more stupid can they get?
Therefore 1) They can simply get the finger since the content was publicly available 2) They CAN sue those who uploaded, because that's the law 3) They WILL lose customers because uploading a trailer or some scenes, at the crappy YouTube format/resolution, will NOT stop the users from actually renting, or buying a movie for example to watch.
These people THINK that viewers are stupid. No user in their right mind would watch a tv show or feature film at 320x240 They would like to spend $10 for a ticket+popcorn and enjoy it
So they are basically making their company look like morons
It is equally stupid as if you had lets say Warner chasing you for listening to someone's car music passing by you, who happened to download that song from a torrent site.
Bottomline, for as long as content (copyrighted or not) gets produced, delivered, and becomes available in public access places, people WILL share it with others because that's what people do. They like to share stuff they find
If they (Viacom) had 0.1 milligrams of brain matter inside their empty skulls, they could use their money to create an iTunes-relevant service and provide the content by themselves. Or do the "right" thing as other companies do via YouTube / iTunes
But, Ooops, I forgot. Corporate idiots know jack about internet and youth CULTURE like Apple and Google does. How much do you pay your stupid lawyers and PR people again? LOL! Welcome to the world of FREE advertising.
If they try to pull such a stunt with European web surfers they'll get a lawsuit up their asses the size of the Atlantic, just because you don't mess with PRIVACY and IP security in Europe. No ISP is allowed to give private data without a SUPREME COURT decision from the user's originating country and ONLY if that involves serious criminal activity, which in this case is NOT. Random surfers were just watching random videos unaware that they were uploaded by others, or without explicit notice by the platform (YouTube) that the content they were watching was not from the copyright owner. That sh!t only happens in America, because stupid people are placed in important places
In less than 5 years from now, any Network that does not offer free content will die. THAT's A FACT. And that is just the beginning.
Those idiots are still living in the previous century Someone tell them that the world has advanced since
The future is 100% FREE CONTENT with TARGETED ADS based on user habbits to make money for the networks by serving relevant ads so that the users welcome them and watch them.
Like it or not Viacom, that's the future. Now go back to mommy and cry for not catching the band wagon fast enough as Google did.
boo hoo hoo
Cookiemouse
· 1 year ago
Right on hnb. I've already made my complaint to the British Information Commissioner and would encourage others here in Europe to do the same. My privacy belongs to me. No American judge has a right to play around with it. How many children use YouTube? They surely have a right to data protection, as do all the rest of us.
Edward de Leau
· 1 year ago
I support Viacom in their quest for protecting their content. However Stealing a Log File which contains personal details (see AOL case, people can be traced by just their viewing habits) of about anyone on the planet makes my stomach turn.
Can the regular people do anything againt this? Probably not against a firm which is BIG.
However, we could place a little icon after every Viacom related site (mtv, dora, paramount, dreamworks, see: http://www.viacom.com/ourbrands/Pages/default.aspx) AND we could for a period not buy any products of any of this firms, not coverage any news or marketing from these firms etc... this should influence the stock value, where little rumours can have big effects.
Anyone sets up a community website with enough bandwidth to get this started?
harpless
· 1 year ago
I hope Google will challenge that request and not simply cave in.
Supernetuser
· 1 year ago
That's all really messed up.
thingsyoushoulddo
· 1 year ago
Be more specific - Viacom owns Paramount and Dreamworks studios - their summer movies are The Love Guru and and Tropic Thunder (comedy with stiller, jack black and robert downey due out Aug 15th).
It wouldn't be that difficult for the flashmob people to make a little havoc for viacom
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.
retarded chris
· 1 year ago
ok im confused, isnt a dynamic ip address the one that changes all the time? would that protect you? i dont know about these things, but yeah, fuck viacom
markzero
· 1 year ago
I don't see how they could sue me for just watching. Unless that puts me in receipt of stolen property somehow?
livelyalexis
· 1 year ago
Yes, Viacom is lame for being a tight wad, youtube/google is lame for not fighting harder for the privacy of user IPs (just to get the court off their backs), and the judge? probably not too bright about the techy stuff either?
But I don't think there's anything to be worried about for users. If you think about it, it's the people that POST/UPLOAD copyrighted videos that the IPS might be really used for. Youtube content is youtube content on a public website, and people browse around to watch different things all the time, and even on other sides. The users are not supposed to be able to figure out what IS copyrighted, and what is not. And besides, there are billions of users of youtube.
On the other hand, the persons uploading copyrighted materials...well, they most likely do know what they are doing, and might be the ones possibly getting in trouble. There are even terms and conditions when uploading videos, so yes, they MIGHT get in trouble.
Tim
· 1 year ago
I don't buy much music, I just don't have time to listen to it except when driving. When I do hear a song I like I go to you tube and listen to it again. In 99.9% of the cases I end up buying the CD at a store. Only because I had time to listen to it on YouTube and decide I really did like it. If it wasn't for YouTube I would have never spent my money. YouTube should be suing for part of the profit, since it was them that "sold me" on the music.
YouTube has turned me on to products I would have bought without seeing it first. I watch shows that I have seen on YouTube because I have liked the videos of them there, otherwise I would have never attempted to see them.
I use it as a tool, I'm sure many others do too. If viacom was smart they would partner up with them instead.
In todays fast paced world, I preview before I waste my time buying, watching, listening...
Sorry Viacom if I am watching one of your shows because I liked it on YouTube. I will be sure not to watch your TV shows anymore.
Could you please provide me with a list of your products so I can avoid them on YouTube and TV, as I don't pay attention where it comes from.
I don't want to be sued because I enjoyed something you made.
Fireant
· 1 year ago
so ridiculous
Rusty Nail
· 1 year ago
Big Brother, Big Brother, Big Brother: there are programs people can download to "hide" their IP addresses. Motherf***ers. Welcome to 1984, y'all. Screw this, I'm moving to the Middle Earth.
What?
· 4 months ago
alright, that sucks and everything, but I have to say I'm pretty sure viacom isn't going to sue me, regardless of their chances of winning . . . that's fucking retarded.
I understand its a battle over privacy, but guess what guys our identities are out there and they were available long before viacom. THAT is the disturbing part of the internet privacy issue.
All Comments
What a stupid, poorly thought out decision. What GOOD could possibly come of this? Other than being used to track people, the IP does NOTHING to help their cause. I don't see what the Judge *thought* he was doing to help?
Aren't Judges supposed to have reasoning and deduction skills?! What an idiot.
I'm sure the good guys at Google will do everything they can to make Viacom's life difficult for us :)
Why did the court give them the IP`s of those who watched the video? Perhaps they even did not know that is was copyright protected.
If they can be held responsible for just watching them, it would mean that if NBC would broadcast a copyright protected clip, all people watching NBC at that moment could be held responsible for that!!!!!
RIDICULOUS!!!!!!
Is he wrong? Yes. Is he catastrophically wrong? Nah. What really happens will be decided on appeal.
See the links:
http://widgy.net/widgy/2008/07/02/e-oficial-ope...
http://orkutdeveloper.blogspot.com/2008/07/prep...
Why did the court give them the IP`s of those who watched the video? Perhaps they even did not know that is was copyright protected.
If they can be held responsible for just watching them, it would mean that if NBC would broadcast a copyright protected clip, all people watching NBC at that moment could be held responsible for that!!!!!
RIDICULOUS!!!!!!
I am, however, far more likely to go through the hassle of masking my IP address when using any entertainment service.
And encourage people to focus on boycotting Viacom, rather than spending time worrying about Twitter reliability, or how many social networks they belong to...
also F@#$ Viacom
I think it's about time Viacom was reminded that without viewers, they are nothing.
Let's not beat around the bush, Viacom will just simply go to the ISP's and say give me your names, account details, addresses and logs for these IP numbers or we'll sue you too (which they have for homeland security purposes).
Google have just aided and abetted Viacom to come and fine you by giving them the only key to finding out about your address. Sure their argument is that some wont be found out, but the rest? Who cares, Google doesnt.
Never thought I'd say that.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9983631-93.htm...
QUOTE:
The court's protective order stipulates that data turned over to Viacom by Google must be used for the sole purpose of proving Viacom's claim against Google that YouTube is a hotbed of pirated video content, the sources said. Viacom will not have direct access to the YouTube user data, the source said. Access is restricted to outside counsel and experts.
...
The source added that Viacom is looking into user anonymization technology, so that even the low-level personal data that could be exposed--say, YouTube user handles that contain a person's real name--are is not accessible to anyone.
Additionally, the source explained that the judge's decision cannot be directly applied to any of the other online video sites, from Veoh to DailyMotion. Since the case has been handled in a trial court, not a court of appeals, the decision will not be used as precedent.
If they try to misuse this info
That, and the possibility of massive countersuits, will immediately stop their ambitions.
The bottom line is that they still need the consumers, if the consumers get angry, they will die a slow death
Yeah fortunately with Web2.0 + the Internet there is some Strength in Numbers so that the Little People (don't know any myself being a BigShot) can Fight back against this kinda Crap*
Still if Martha Stewart can go to Prison for doing what every other Dickwad on Wall Street + Bay Street does on a Daily basis then U certainly can't Trust these Clowns*
;)) Peace*
Anyway, I agree it was a horrible decision by the court.
As a youtube content creator and avid viewer I will be boycotting all of viacom's products.
500 Pearl St., Room 2250
New York, NY 10007
Chambers Phone: (212) 805-0252
Deputy Phone: (212) 805-0123
http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/judge_info.php?id=31
It'd be nice if someone could find his home phone number or that of his daughter or wife (Susan Helen Stanton is the daughter, Phoebe R. Stanton is the wife). Let's see how he likes his personal information spread around. Repost.
Was he wrong? YES. Was he catastrophically wrong? YES. Make him PAY.
How could we fight these idiots I am kind of scared to use youtube now.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
So surely it should be the uploaders, not the veiwers who are in the wrong
This is similar to Metallica going after that dude from Napster. Sucks!
The guys who posted those Anonymous videos against Scientology, for example-- their identities will be exposed. There must be people in Viacom who are Scientologists.
They can blackmail any politicians who watched something scandalous...
Google will be forced to shut down. The Internet will perish, and the government will have you use Government Watched Computers (GWCs) to use the new internet. These GWCs has all the information saved on the hard drive, and EVERYTHING you look at will be saved. Along with this, the government will go a step further and use constant phone tapping. Then that will lead to the end of the digital world because porn will then be sold on the streets as if it was a drug. Then I will learn how to live in a log cabin in the middle of COMPLETE NOWHERE so I can farm and stuff and live off the earth like the old old times. God, the world is taking one step back!
Lets not blame the judge -- lets blame Youtube.
If Youtube wasn't so busy trying invade our privacy themselves, the IPaddress data would not be stored. The tracking watched videos can easily be stored in a way that is not directly connected back to your account and better yet only kept for 6 months.
Blame Youtube for even having the data available in the first place.
Let's get real, here: Expecting to be completely anonymous and untraceable simply because you're on the internet is ridiculous. There are already thousands of records / files / papers floating around in the world with your REALLY personal information on it -- the internet is Fort Knox by comparison.
Privacy is a big issue and I agree this judge is dumb, but seriously some people are taking this to an extreme degree. It's annoying. Just look at Cookiemouse's post. How can you say that a lot of people are really going to *suffer* because of this? Do you know what suffering is? And child-molesters don't need a list of IP addresses to about their ways.
Wake up, and let's focus on the things that are ACTUALLY causing people to suffer.
I simply need to state this :
A company that needs viewers to make money and gets FREE ADVERTISING for their content by YouTube, is trying to sue the same private individuals who were watching PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CONTENT that they (Viacom) own the rights for, capable of actually driving more sales
Now how more stupid can they get?
Therefore
1) They can simply get the finger since the content was publicly available
2) They CAN sue those who uploaded, because that's the law
3) They WILL lose customers because uploading a trailer or some scenes,
at the crappy YouTube format/resolution, will NOT stop the users from actually renting, or buying a movie for example to watch.
These people THINK that viewers are stupid.
No user in their right mind would watch a tv show or feature film at 320x240
They would like to spend $10 for a ticket+popcorn and enjoy it
So they are basically making their company look like morons
It is equally stupid as if you had lets say Warner chasing you for listening to someone's car music passing by you, who happened to download that song from a torrent site.
Bottomline, for as long as content (copyrighted or not) gets produced, delivered, and becomes available in public access places, people WILL share it with others because that's what people do. They like to share stuff they find
If they (Viacom) had 0.1 milligrams of brain matter inside their empty skulls,
they could use their money to create an iTunes-relevant service and provide the content by themselves. Or do the "right" thing as other companies do via YouTube / iTunes
But, Ooops, I forgot.
Corporate idiots know jack about internet and youth CULTURE like Apple and Google does. How much do you pay your stupid lawyers and PR people again? LOL! Welcome to the world of FREE advertising.
If they try to pull such a stunt with European web surfers they'll get a lawsuit up their asses the size of the Atlantic, just because you don't mess with PRIVACY and IP security in Europe. No ISP is allowed to give private data without a SUPREME COURT decision from the user's originating country and ONLY if that involves serious criminal activity, which in this case is NOT. Random surfers were just watching random videos unaware that they were uploaded by others, or without explicit notice by the platform (YouTube) that the content they were watching was not from the copyright owner. That sh!t only happens in America, because stupid people are placed in important places
In less than 5 years from now, any Network that does not offer free content will die. THAT's A FACT. And that is just the beginning.
Those idiots are still living in the previous century
Someone tell them that the world has advanced since
The future is 100% FREE CONTENT with TARGETED ADS based on user habbits to make money for the networks by serving relevant ads so that the users welcome them and watch them.
Like it or not Viacom, that's the future.
Now go back to mommy and cry for not catching the band wagon fast enough as Google did.
boo hoo hoo
Can the regular people do anything againt this? Probably not against a firm which is BIG.
However, we could place a little icon after every Viacom related site (mtv, dora, paramount, dreamworks, see: http://www.viacom.com/ourbrands/Pages/default.aspx) AND we could for a period not buy any products of any of this firms, not coverage any news or marketing from these firms etc... this should influence the stock value, where little rumours can have big effects.
Anyone sets up a community website with enough bandwidth to get this started?
It wouldn't be that difficult for the flashmob people to make a little havoc for viacom
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.
But I don't think there's anything to be worried about for users. If you think about it, it's the people that POST/UPLOAD copyrighted videos that the IPS might be really used for. Youtube content is youtube content on a public website, and people browse around to watch different things all the time, and even on other sides. The users are not supposed to be able to figure out what IS copyrighted, and what is not. And besides, there are billions of users of youtube.
On the other hand, the persons uploading copyrighted materials...well, they most likely do know what they are doing, and might be the ones possibly getting in trouble. There are even terms and conditions when uploading videos, so yes, they MIGHT get in trouble.
YouTube should be suing for part of the profit, since it was them that "sold me" on the music.
YouTube has turned me on to products I would have bought without seeing it first. I watch shows that I have seen on YouTube because I have liked the videos of them there, otherwise I would have never attempted to see them.
I use it as a tool, I'm sure many others do too. If viacom was smart they would partner up with them instead.
In todays fast paced world, I preview before I waste my time buying, watching, listening...
Sorry Viacom if I am watching one of your shows because I liked it on YouTube. I will be sure not to watch your TV shows anymore.
Could you please provide me with a list of your products so I can avoid them on YouTube and TV, as I don't pay attention where it comes from.
I don't want to be sued because I enjoyed something you made.
I understand its a battle over privacy, but guess what guys our identities are out there and they were available long before viacom. THAT is the disturbing part of the internet privacy issue.