General Discussions

**MikeNumbers1** · 07-15-2008, 04:47 PM

Do you think that it's a problem that Google handed over the data to Viacom at the first sign of trouble?

**Learning Newbie** · 07-15-2008, 06:15 PM

First sign of what type of trouble? Are you asking whether the courts are out of control, or are you asking if Viacom is on a lawsuit binge?

**MikeNumbers1** · 07-23-2008, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

First sign of what type of trouble? Are you asking whether the courts are out of control, or are you asking if Viacom is on a lawsuit binge?

Two signs of trouble are:

1) That as soon as Google has some legal action taken against it, they fold and give up their users information to save themselves.

2) Viacom is sending notices to everyone regardless of whether or not they actually own the content in question. There was recently a write up on a major tech blog that told a story of a high school senior who created a short film (from sratch) and posted in on YouTube. Viacom sent her a letter saying that she couldn't claim ownership of it.

**Learning Newbie** · 07-23-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeNumbers1

1) That as soon as Google has some legal action taken against it, they fold and give up their users information to save themselves.

Oh. Well, if that's all your concerned about, you can rest easy. Whoever gave you that impression was mistaken. Read up on when Bush Co requested search history from all major search engines, and Google was in fact the only one to go to court to defend their customer's privacy. Google has not only a good record, but a unique one in its industry, for doing the opposite of what you're worried about.

The Viacom suit is of course different. Google has already lost and been ordered to produce the records. You can't blame any company for being required to obey the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeNumbers1

2) Viacom is sending notices to everyone regardless of whether or not they actually own the content in question. There was recently a write up on a major tech blog that told a story of a high school senior who created a short film (from sratch) and posted in on YouTube. Viacom sent her a letter saying that she couldn't claim ownership of it.

I need to know the specifics of that case to comment on it. All I can say is that 90 % of the time when I hear some outrageous anecdote, there winds up being another side to the coin.

**MikeNumbers1** · 07-23-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Oh. Well, if that's all your concerned about, you can rest easy. Whoever gave you that impression was mistaken. Read up on when Bush Co requested search history from all major search engines, and Google was in fact the only one to go to court to defend their customer's privacy. Google has not only a good record, but a unique one in its industry, for doing the opposite of what you're worried about.

The Viacom suit is of course different. Google has already lost and been ordered to produce the records. You can't blame any company for being required to obey the law.

I have to disagree with you on this. Everyone is always caught up in Google's "Do No Evil" slogan, that they never think that Google is a company that is out to make money.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't obey the law. By all means they should. However I do think they are selective as to how many resources the put into "defending" some cases over others. You have to think that they are only interested in protecting their own assets (not the user's).

Quote:

I need to know the specifics of that case to comment on it. All I can say is that 90 % of the time when I hear some outrageous anecdote, there winds up being another side to the coin.

Here is a link to the story: http://consumerist.com/5027824/viaco...-youtube-clips

**angele803** · 07-23-2008, 05:11 PM

So I read the story that MikeNumbers1 posted, but I still don't get what Viacom is suing for. Are they saying that the independent film the girl made was Viacom's idea??
And are you saying that Google handed over all of their YouTube user info to Viacom?

**Learning Newbie** · 07-23-2008, 07:31 PM

A court ordered Google to hand over certain data (including a "munged" IP address, a time stamp, and the URL of the video) about what's been watched over YouTube. Viacom is sueing Google, as YouTube's owner, for copyright infringement.

Quote:

I'm not saying that they shouldn't obey the law. By all means they should. However I do think they are selective as to how many resources the put into "defending" some cases over others. You have to think that they are only interested in protecting their own assets (not the user's).

There's nothing untrue in what you wrote. But I think you're glossing over two important points

Google is being sued for copyright, by a close cousin of the RIAA. Even with infinite legal resources, they won't win.
Like all companies, Google is in business to make a profit, and they do this by having customers (of the paying kind, and of the watching kind, who count in CPM & PPC). Alienating people who might use their services hurts Google's bottom line in the near, mid, and far term.

**MikeNumbers1** · 07-24-2008, 04:23 PM

@Angele - exactly what I was referencing in my first post. Viacom basically gets power hungry and will begin saying things belong to them regardless if its true or not. And yes, Google handed over their Youtube user's data.

@LearningNewbie -Copyright on the internet is a very grey area. I'm not saying their aren't some open and shut cases, such as copying a logo directly, or photos that were taken. However, the internet today is basically the wild west, and their are many rules that can be taken either way.

Did you hear about the company (may or may not have been Viacom) that had youtube take down a Mom's youtube video of her dancing baby, because the baby was dancing to a Michael Jackson CD playing in the background? Don't you think this is an instance where it goes too far?

**angele803** · 07-24-2008, 04:35 PM

Well, in that case, did I tell you guys that I was the one who thought up the plot for the new Batman movie? Do you think I can sue warner brothers?

Quote:

Did you hear about the company (may or may not have been Viacom) that had youtube take down a Mom's youtube video of her dancing baby, because the baby was dancing to a Michael Jackson CD playing in the background? Don't you think this is an instance where it goes too far?

Wow! I do think this is taking it to far. If the lady was directly profiting from her Michael-Jackson-dancing baby, I can see where this would be a problem, but for a home video? Geeze!

**eautocad** · 07-24-2008, 05:01 PM

wow... I had no clue!

**PHP4me** · 07-24-2008, 07:01 PM

Nor me, that's surprised me greatly.

**Learning Newbie** · 07-24-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeNumbers1

Viacom basically gets power hungry and will begin saying things belong to them regardless if its true or not. And yes, Google handed over their Youtube user's data.

I guess that depends what "user's data" is. Google is only handing over anonymized data, and even then, it's only going to Viacom's lawyers, not the company itself. I'm not particularly thrilled that somewhat outsider, 3rd party attorneys get the only hands on access to this data, but, I have to admit, they have far less interest in abusing the data. (Anyone who's ever used PayPal is familiar with the concept of a proxy.)

From CNN

Quote:

Instead of providing Viacom the user names and IP addresses for everyone who has viewed a video on YouTube, Google will provide a random, anonymous code number, a spokesman for the company told CNN.

In all honesty, it's a bit of a stretch to call this YouTube user data, because it can't be connected to any particular user.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeNumbers1

@LearningNewbie -Copyright on the internet is a very grey area. I'm not saying their aren't some open and shut cases, such as copying a logo directly, or photos that were taken. However, the internet today is basically the wild west, and their are many rules that can be taken either way.

No, not at all. Individuals can choose to obey the rules, or not to obey them - this is no different than people selling drugs on the street corner, even when it's illegal. I can host a copy of SQL Server 2008 on my web site for anyone to download. I can do it, because it's technically possible, but it's also 100 % illegal, with zero doubt. For a web site to profit (from ad revenue) by hosting pirate videos, is unquestionably illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeNumbers1

Did you hear about the company (may or may not have been Viacom) that had youtube take down a Mom's youtube video of her dancing baby, because the baby was dancing to a Michael Jackson CD playing in the background? Don't you think this is an instance where it goes too far?

No, but in the USA, anybody can sue anybody else for any reason - and normally lose. Again, without knowing the details of the case, it's really impossible for any of us to comment. It sounds bad, but again, there are two sides to every coin, and I'd like to know the other. Also, out of billions of videos on YouTube, it would be shocking if there weren't 1 or 2 strange anecdotes.

If I drop a balloon, it will "fall" upwards. I can't go making larger inferences and assume that if I drop a can of Pepsi, it will also fall up. Tossing out 2 examples of things that sound bad on YouTube and asking people to draw internet wide inferences, well, it would be dangerous for us to do that!

**jesterx** · 07-25-2008, 04:20 AM

the legal stuff that goes on in the US today is absurd.

people threaten other people...people suing other people.

when i first heard about this I felt sorry for youtube...they might be watched more closely now and get into trouble for things that were not intentially done wrong.

viacom asking for this stuff is like your best mate asking what type of g strings your girlfriend likes wearing...its a bit intrusive.

**Learning Newbie** · 07-25-2008, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesterx

when i first heard about this I felt sorry for youtube...they might be watched more closely now and get into trouble for things that were not intentially done wrong.

Do people have an inherent right to things other people make without having to pay for them? Is it ok to profit from something illegal if you claim not to intend to do anything wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jesterx

viacom asking for this stuff is like your best mate asking what type of g strings your girlfriend likes wearing...its a bit intrusive.

That analogy would be more accurate if your best mate was asking about your girlfriend's underwear because his girlfriend's underwear was recently stolen.

People seem to be missing the point that Viacom spent a great deal of money to make all that content that everybody else wants to watch. There must be value if everybody wants it bad enough to break the law for it. And being able to watch Three's Company isn't exactly like collecting a welfare check.

**MikeNumbers1** · 07-25-2008, 03:30 PM

While I do agree it is wrong to make a profit off someone else's material, I don't think the user's uploading the content to Youtube are doing it for that reason. And while Youtube does host ads on their service, they are not openly suggesting people upload copy written material so that they can make money.

Also, what if I purchase a copy of a tv show and want to upload it to you tube to share with people? (I assume most would argue that I cannot distribute the content). To respond to that, I would say, what if those youtube user's were my friends and if they couldn't watch it on youtube then they would come to my house and watch it? (the example is far fetched, but I'm just trying to make an example).

My feeling is that a lot of Viacom's material gets great exposure on Youtube and may actually boost their DVD, Music, and other sales.