thats right

Off Topic. What on earth is going on with MSNBC. They have not shown NEWS since before 7 pm. All they have on is crappy old stories. No News!

The more they squeeze... the more slips through their fingers.

Crooks and Liars may want to reconsider embedding youtube videos on its own web page - put your money where your mouth is.

Oh well, no more Youtube viewing. That's the way it goes.

Here's a link to the story. Says "Viacom wants the data to prove that infringing material is more popular than user-created videos, which could be used to increase Google's liability if it is found guilty of contributory infringement."

I think the viewers are safe, but the uploaders could be hearing from Viacom.

The moral of the story is, don't keep logs any longer than legally required. If you don't have the data, it can't be subpoenaed. Same thing goes for email, although email might need to be encrypted, since no one knows if and how long ISPs are archiving the data.

In another big brother story, the Dept of Justice may be tracking cell phone users whereabouts.

But in the end, I have the answers. If any of the parties are doing anything unconstitutional, then simply give them immunity.

What's the problem? Would it be any different if Viacom bought all the shares in YouTube and then owned the data by right, rather than needing a judge order it into their possession? Surely once your data is with a corporation it's with all of them, because they pass it around and sell it to one another for money. In this case Viacom has worked out a way of getting this valuable data without having to pay for it.

i didn't like the sound of this when i read the headlines on the googlenews page earlier today...
thanks for all the professional elaboration, with links!

any story about messin' with my tubes, i get nervous...

Chris Rich @ 11:

God, not more hyperventilating.

I'm watching this thing. The Judge is a clueless old coot who got it all upside down and this has a ways to drag through appeals and will be an unworkable clusterfuck anyway.

Tell me, do any of you actually do deep immersion in core issue stuff at both macro and micro levels or do you just do spasmodic jerking of knees in some reflexive spasm each time a new ridiculous gob of crud rolls down the pipe?

Yup. Much Ado About Nothing. Although why do I get the feeling that somewhere Ted Stevens is still cursing those Tubes?

Julian Todd Says: What’s the problem? Would it be any different if Viacom bought all the shares in YouTube and then owned the data by right, rather than needing a judge order it into their possession? Surely once your data is with a corporation it’s with all of them, because they pass it around and sell it to one another for money. In this case Viacom has worked out a way of getting this valuable data without having to pay for it.

Scuse me, but since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about, how about Google just give them the stupid billion and be done with the lawsuit. But, I digress. Google could buy Viacom with CASH.

not the least bit off topic read the end of america by naomi wolf and then pass it on to a friend today

WTF?

Viacom has no need to know where I go on youtube.

What next? Will they be telling C&L that they have to hand over the IDs of everyone that comes to this site?

Then there is this , the Senate bill rider that will allow the government to spy on e commerce.

There is no end to the treachery.

I hope they don't mess with XTube.

From the pdf file, the Judge's orders:

Defendants’ “Logging” database contains, for each instance a video is watched, the unique “login ID” of the user who watched it, the time when the user started to watch the video, the internet protocol address other devices connected to the internet use to identify the user’s computer (“IP address”), and the identifier for the video.

(4) The motion to compel production of all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website is granted;

The reason:

They need the data to compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing videos with that of non-infringing videos. A markedly higher proportion of infringing-video watching may bear on plaintiffs’ vicarious liability claim, and defendants’ substantial non-infringing use defense.

In other words, they *only* want all that information to evaluate whether Viacom's copyrighted material was being viewed more frequently than, say, user-produced video.

Sounds rather thin to me.

Since all that data fits on a just a few massive hard drives, it wouldn't be all that difficult to simply search the hard drives and determine how many times each video was watched - without turning over all the user data.

Or for that matter, create a data file with ONLY the necessary info, without any IP numbers, usernames, etc.

it is apparent that the judge doesnt understand how users connect to the internets

most connect through dynamic ip...which means that unplug your modem and bang, a new ip is assigned to you

additionally, what constitutes original material? clips? clips with commentary? or full tv shows and movies

also, there are now thousands of file sharing sites and linking sites....many of which are offshore

viacom wants money

and i sure as shit dont want some big company to know my viewing habits...when they dont own the site

oh, and when are we gonna bash on barack for continuing to go further and further towards the middle?

this isn't about big brother. it's about a company losing money because some person can take a video and put it up there and the people who made that video are not making any money on that video.

i could go make a website called liars and crooks and take every word from this site and make it mine. would anyone here be mad at that. its not stealing , i just happen to be a fan of this site and want people to enjoy it. Not that i want to , just making a case.

Corporations not have the rights of a real human beings; the corporations' rights actually *trump* those of real human beings.

BC @ 33:

I think the burden of proof is on Stanton to show that providing dates, times, videos watched, IP addresses and unique ids which can be traced back to an individual would NOT have a privacy implication.

Also, not being a legal minded individual, how do the details of these records help in a copyright infringement help?

Quoting from the Judge's decision:

They need the data to compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing videos with that of non-infringing videos. A markedly higher proportion of infringing-video watching may bear on plaintiffs’ vicarious liability claim, and defendants’ substantial non-infringing use defense.

In other words, they *only* want all that information to evaluate whether Viacom’s copyrighted material was being viewed more frequently than, say, user-produced video.

Sounds rather thin to me.

Since all that data fits on a just a few massive hard drives, it wouldn’t be all that difficult to simply search the hard drives and determine how many times each video was watched - without turning over all the user data.

Or for that matter, create a data file with ONLY the necessary info, without any IP numbers, usernames, etc.

Johnny2Bad @ 8:

Why are we worried?

President Obama is going to "monitor" this stuff.

No worries.

No worries? The guy's no better than anyone else, and a hierarchy is not its leader.

Phantom(God of Hellfire) @ 41:

I hope Viacom goes under.

Don't purchase their products...

Judges that don't know how to use a mobile phone shouldn't be trying cases involving high tech.

Clarification: "Choke on my balls" was directed to Viacom, not Crooks and Liars.

Time for a mass VIACOM embargo! Don't watch their movies. Cancel their cable channels. Prove you're not their junkie ... if you can.

Google will also be required to hand over copies of every video removed from Youtube for any reason (DMCA notices or user-initiated deletions). Stanton dismissed Google’s argument that the order will violate user privacy, saying such privacy concerns are merely “speculative.”"

I've viewed quite a view YouTube videos. What does my IP address and my viewing habits have to do with Viacom's copyright lawsuit against Google?! How can Judge Stanton argue such privacy concerns are speculative? Viacom's lawsuit aside, how else might this information be used and by whom? Who else will have access to this information?

John O @ 16:

Big Brother is here. Not coming. Here.

Presumably this can be appealed, but it won't matter in the long run.

Those of us who want some semblance of privacy in our lives are screwed. And, just for the record, I blame a lot of "us" for not crying out louder for the principles of the 4th Amendment while it was being eviscerated by the War on Drugs.

I'd like to see some movement by our elected leaders to just get rid of #4, since it is only for show anyway at this point.

Perhaps a strong movement to get rid of it would wake some people the f**k up.

It's interesting. When Philip K. Dick wrote 'A Scanner Darkly', and mentioned the 'war on drugs' being used to seize control of one private information... you want to know what happened?

Is home was broken into, and all his files and belongings were torn apart and gone through.

A Scanner Darkly was written in 1977. If anyone thinks that the Right Wingers and private agencies haven't been planning on breaking into our privacy for decades, you're being naive.

In a fascist government, one of the first things they do is spy on the people. They also restrict information.

Did you guys hear about laptops being seized at the airports? It seems to especially happen if you work for news agencies or educational institutions.... Interesting. Those are the first people under attack in fascist societies.

These people want to make us slaves. They want us fearful.

They even tell us War is Peace. See the following link.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/03/14/the-purpose-of-war-is-peace/

That's a line right out of George Orwell nightmares. These people are evil. They make no attempt to hide it anymore. They should not be allowed to pollute the human gene pool.

Viacom is evil as well as idiotic. And judge Stanaton is their clueless enabler.

It's just the end of YouTube, not the end of free Internet.

rduke @ 38:

Filthy Harry @ 6:

rduke @ 5:

The more they squeeze... the more slips through their fingers.

is that a handjob joke?

Actually a Frank Herbert reference regarding the layout of authoritarian regimes...

But if you cannot relate to that ... fit it in your mind anyway you can.

Relax I was being glib. Leia also paraphrased it.

btw, every vid on youtube and google records the hits....publically

its what gets people to keep posting, and makes many users feel special

and its the user created stuff that gets the most hits

This IP tracking is as bogus as Tv cameras in intersections.
TV cameras take pictures of YOUR car going through the red light, no one gets a ticket, you get a tickert as the owner of the car for your car going through the red light.

IP address tracking is only as good as tracking the computer, who wsa using it, whose eyes actually saw the video, who actually listened to the mp3 recording? It is all moot when it gets down to that point.

Gah! I... uh... really have nothing else to say. I mean, what is there to say? It's fortunate that I only signed up for a Youtube account solely to be able to watch videos marked as mature content. If I had been using Youtube seriously as a kind of blogging and social networking tool as many do, I'd be in a total rage that so much of my personal life and correspondence was not only logged but likely to be turned over, in full, to faceless people that could do with all that information whatever they please.

Would anybody be so kind as to save me a few minutes of research and tell me what companies and products are associated with Viacom, so I can make a conscious effort not to support this company? Much appreciated.

Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 33:

it is apparent that the judge doesnt understand how users connect to the internets

most connect through dynamic ip...which means that unplug your modem and bang, a new ip is assigned to you

additionally, what constitutes original material? clips? clips with commentary? or full tv shows and movies

also, there are now thousands of file sharing sites and linking sites....many of which are offshore

viacom wants money

and i sure as shit dont want some big company to know my viewing habits...when they dont own the site

oh, and when are we gonna bash on barack for continuing to go further and further towards the middle?

Uncle Joe makes a good point, so if the Google sets up an offshore point of origin, then they are home free with this U.S. law bu||shit. hmmm,

This judge needs to retire,or BE RETIRED.

Logo is the only good one out of the whole bunch.

The problem is not

The problem is NOW

One very important and often ignored aspect to the war on filesharing, old shows unofficially archived by joe public,
and to an extent user generated content is that the big corporations dont like joe public having a monster archive of old content,
it makes for a very informed and aware consumer, aware to the recycling and ripping of of older recording musicians.
The RIAA companies are rather fond of deconstructing old records from decades before (prob without permission) and selling the recycled muzak as new on radio and TV.
Joe public with access to the 100,000s of old music tracks, and video sites, allows people to see compare and witness the recycling

People are missing the real significance of this ruling. The 4th Amendment has been trashed since the Reganites on the SC killed the Warren's Courts rulings starting in the mid 80s. Give up on any notion of privacy - you have none - abeit anonymity and that isnt worth much in today's electronic world.

The real significance of this ruling is that the law suit by Viacom(a firmly established M$M corporatist propaganda machine) is just a flimsy discovery argument being used to justify destroying the emerging alternative media. It is a clear fact that Youtube and Goolge Video are the main sources of spreading the truth about all the crap the ruling elite is involved in.
Mass exposure to real news and the real world are what YouTube and Google video are.

No one in there right mind can argue any lost revenue by the display of Viacom materials on YouTube. The quality is generally so awfully poor than no pirate organization would use anything posted on those sites as master material for any large scale distribution of copyrighted video material. It is just a smoke screen to cover the true intentions. Large volume
piracy occurs off-shore or utilizes BitTorrent to transfer production quality video. No this law suit has more nefarious purposes.

People are becoming aware of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney, the real Iraq war, CIA/Illegal-Drug Cartel, Oil Price/Futures Scam, the lies of the ruling elilte, Bilderburger, NAU, SPP or what ever new plot being sprung on the massive naive "We the People" and the rest of th 99%ers (Iran War).

YouTube is an entry point for people who are finally waking up from the coma of ignorance. Easy to access and view videos stimulate the basic curiosity that humans possess and the ruling elite despises. No this is direct attempt to finish off the 1st Amendment, after they have already killed the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th ones.

The ruling elite's corporatist propaganda arm (5 companies already own over 80% of all the traditional media sources) want is to eliminate the growing remainder (20%) of what they dont control.

The data being supplied has nothing to do with protecting copyrighted material - not one single real-life thing. The IDENTITY of who views any source of material has NOTHING to do with copyright infringement - not one single thing. The sole remedy that a copyright owner has is against the parties who KNOWINGLY MASS produce or publish the materials in violation of the owner's copyright.

If Viacom claims that YouTube is an active co-conspirator or negligent party to the publishing or production of the violated materials, then only the QUANTITY not the IDENTITY of the publishing is could possibly be an issue. And then, the QUANTITY of the publishing will only be an issue once VIACOM proves that YouTube either knowingly or negligently published KNOWN copyright infringed materials. The QUANTITY can be used only to infer negligence, active knowledge or damage calculation. IDENTITY has no relevance to the real common/tort/IP laws involved here.

This ruling is typical of Neo-con/fascist judges. It is results oriented Scaliaeque obfuscation, lies and fiat. These appointed fascist enablers are the same types that all ruling classes infect a judicial system with to control any opposition to their rule. Rubberstamping Neanderthals Brownshirts who represent the worst in human nature. They do the bidding for their feudal lords and will only be removed by force once their over-seers are eliminated.

History has shown that these enablers and their rulers will come to a violent ending. Many innocents have suffered in the process. But it is becoming increasing clear, that we as a species have not progress sufficiently to perform self-enlightenment/correction.

The "straw that broke the camels" back will come again - it always has come. But sadly not before many more will suffer under the throws of the fascists. No, Natures medicine is harsh, uncaring, but effective. If the world's population does not stand up very soon to the likes of these feudal lords, then the cure to the ills which they infected mankind will be painful for all involved.

Celebrate the words and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution this Fourth of July, not the current temporary occupiers of the offices of public trust. No, re-discover the the Rights of Man, the Federalist Papers, the note of the Constitutional Conventions and renew the independent revolutionary spirit that once identified this nation as unique. Do not fall for the jargon, propaganda and subjugation being spewed by the 1%'s propagandists.

YouTube is the modern day pamphleteer. In 1776 and 1798 it was undergound presses, in 1860 is was the same, now it is Youtube. Be a real patriot and honor the spirit and words of the Founding Fathers - fight these Neo-con fascist and their lackeys now - using strength and intelligence. For failing to defeat them peacefully, America will become just another footnote in long list of fascist states destroyed by violence with untold and unnecessary suffering.

FU trolls, lackeys, Brownshirts and Quislings.

Power to "We the People" and the "Spirit of 1776"!!!

What we should really be asking ... is why in the hell Youtube is keeping IP addresses and other unique identifying information.

As a software professional I can tell you that it is possible to make the data unique gibberish - its called a one-way hash. With one-way hashes, YouTube could determine that 2 IP address are the same but not know what the IP address actually is.

.

Q U E S T I O N:
Is Viacom a Telecommunications Corporation?
Would they be immunized, too...?

.

Embittered & Anti-Republicrat - Max-Hussein-1 @ 83:

.

Q U E S T I O N:
Is Viacom a Telecommunications Corporation?
Would they be immunized, too...?

.

Great question and the one that really needs to be asked/answered.
Joost is a company created by the pair behind Skype and KaZaA ( Niklas Zennstrôm and Janus Friis). Viacom got hold of Joost in early 2007. Before then they were working on something called the "The Venice Project".

Dr. Wu @ 43:

Don't worry--the chances are that at least two of the three judges on the appellate panel have watched porn on YouTube.

And the original judge has probably taken part in his share in his day, what a rollicking woofter, needs to get into the real world they live in their own prtected universe, surrounded by the good things in life, yes I said porn,

What Mr Bill 123 said was great.
Listen to him. Thats the talk that gives me hope for the USA. You folks down there all read your Constitution tomorrow, eat some hot dogs, have a cold one and start swinging the hammer at those bastards.
We'll do what we can on this issue up North to as we have a wanker for a prime minister that needs the boot.

unrepentant expat @ 79:

Maybe YouTube should claim that they gave the records to Dick Cheney who lost them. He's good at that.

lmao
Or stored in an 'undisclosed location'

The cynic in me is gaining ground on the optimist. Our institutions are failing us right and left. The ACLU is right, "Liberty requires eternal vigilance." Never let anyone try to convince you otherwise. I'm sick of the imposition of authoritarian principles by political and economic individuals who lust for power over others.

Someone should follow the judge and videotape all the movement of him and his family. Post it on youtube, it's user created material, and not owned by Viacom. See how he likes it.

Also, I thought about just losing the records like the white house. I like the one way hash idea, seems like a fix. And what is the length of time that any company is required to hang onto these kind of records? If they(*youtube) were keeping them for longer, what was their motivation for doing so?

Perhaps a parody video of the judge (actor in judge mask) fucking a blow-up doll labeled "the american public".

toomuchsun @ 87:

Watching Jon Stewart on youtube is what led me to start watching The Daily Show. And now Viacom is suing for the free advertising they were getting.

Does it get any dumber than that?

Getting a major corporation to understand how ideas and memes really spread in the world is difficult at best. They really do seem to be hell-bent on scrambling for every stray dime whether it is sensible to do so or not. This mentality is also what leads corporations to lay off workers when their quarterly results are not meeting the expectations of some greased-up prick in a suit on Wall Street, and build gas-guzzling SUV's when the price of gas is rising fast enough to shift the market in the opposite direction. Short term, near-sighted greed and self-defeating stupidity.

There's a video of me on YouTube. I didn't know the show was being taped, I wasn't approached by anyone or asked to sign any release, and didn't even know it existed on the site until someone pointed me to it. I suppose it's a fairly common occurrence. I could go through the motions of asking to have it taken down, but it hardly seems worth it. That doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it.

Makes me wonder why Google is keeping all that information in the first place. If Google gave a damn about its customers' privacy rights, it would be erasing all IP address information or not even collecting it. Google needs to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court, because this is a vacuum cleaner type violation of privacy. Probably a Patriot Act requirement.

This is the exact equivalent to Google being a brick-and-mortar business and Viacom demanding credit card numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers of all Goggle's customers. No judge would allow it, because the request is absurd. How much also, of what Viacom is trying to do could be regarded as trying to eviscerate fair use provisions of copy right law? And for that matter, why can't Google just pay a flat licensing fee to Viacom, the same way restaurants , etc, pay flat rate fees to ASCAP and BMI for the right to play copyroighted music in their establishments. In that case, every customer is not required to surrender all of their personal information in order to patronize the establishment. By the ruling from the bench, the judge appears to be hostile to any concepts of privacy.

In the meantime, much as I love Colbert, Stewart and South Park, I suggest a boycott of all Viacom products.

Doesn't really matter. Would take thousands and thousands of people YEARS to go through the data. Plus, it's not like they'll fine 100 million people. I mean, come on.

Still sucks though.

Why don't the short-sighted moronic greedy pigs at Viacom pull their heads out of their asses?

Can't they see they have an incredible marketing tool available to them?

Universal Music Group, for example, provides licensed content to YouTube for download. They then post advertising to sell the music or other products and promotions.

To Viacom: Wake up dummies. The technology is here and it's not going away. Learn how to use it your advantage.

continue ... they are the one who gives power to that constitutionally challenged judge Stanton to hand in this judgment. Him and that idiotic penguins known as the useless Supreme fucking- court- bush- ass- kissing- judges appointees.

What could these data tell Viacom or the Government about the millions of people who view You Tube material but are not registered users?

According to a story today in the Washington Post by Ellen Nakashima, YouTube will not appeal Judge Stanton's order.

Yesterday, lawyers for Google said they would not appeal the ruling. They sent Viacom a letter requesting that the company allow YouTube to redact user names and IP addresses from the data.

Folks, it's essentially all over except for the shouting.

There will be no appeal.

I just wrote to Viacom. Not my most literal effort, but why waste words on blockheads? Letter here:

I was just reading about the lawsuit against Google and youtube. I have to say, this is about as ridiculous as it gets. I initially watched Jon Stewart on youtube, and that is how I came to watch the show. Because of the free ads for the show, I started watching it, and The Colbert Report. You should be thrilled to be getting free advertising!! However, if you are successful in your lawsuit, I will be boycotting all your products, including my two favorite shows, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. In reading the online blogs, a lot of people feel the same way. I have now boycotted Amazon for one whole year. I buy books at a local bookstore. So go ahead with your stupid lawsuit, but be prepared to lose a lot of viewers over it. Folks are not happy about the extreme greediness of corporations in America.

Sincerely,
Me

Viacom is waiting for a lawsuit of invasion of privacy