Viacom to Get You Tube Viewer Details and Habits

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:06:36 PM EST
Tags: You Tube (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

As a result of a copyright infringement lawsuit between Google and Viacom,

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled.

The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.

This decision appears to affect You Tube watchers world-wide. Google raised privacy issues with the court, to no avail:

[I]t said privacy concerns expressed by Google about handing over the log were "speculative".

Google isn't blameless in this latest threat to our privacy. [More...]

Leading privacy expert Simon Davies told BBC News that the privacy of millions of YouTube users was threatened.

"The chickens have come home to roost for Google. Their arrogance and refusal to listen to friendly advice has resulted in the privacy of tens of millions being placed under threat."

Mr Davies said privacy campaigners had warned Google for years that IP addresses were personally identifiable information. Google pledged last year to anonymise IP addresses for search information but it has said nothing about YouTube data.

So, what will Viacom learn? Apparently, IP addresses contain identifying information. The logs to be turned over include IP addresses of people who posted videos as well as those who watch.

The court also ruled that Google disclose to Viacom the details of all videos that have been removed from the site for any reason.

I wonder what Viacom intends to do with the information. Will it hire legions of techies to sort through the info and then bring lawsuits?

< Bush Says No Imminent Decision on Guantanamo | Contradictions >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Viacom to Get You Tube Viewer Details and Habits | 31 comments (31 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Everyone or just logged in users? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by nycstray on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:34:44 PM EST

The viewing log, which will be handed to Viacom, contains the log-in ID of users, the computer IP address (online identifier) and video clip details.

I'm confused :) I don't think I've ever logged into You Tube?

Google pledged last year to anonymise IP addresses for search information but it has said nothing about YouTube data.

Never realized they could track how many times I use google for spelling, lol!~

I wonder if they plan to start suing individuals for infringement?

I'm Confused (none / 0) (#13)
by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:46:51 PM EST

as well. I've never logged into YouTube either.

And I'm not a techie by any means, but I have a non-static IP address (I think most PC users do; Mac users not so much), which means the IP number of my PC changes everytime I turn my PC off and back on. My understanding was that the IP address only indicated the general location of the user.

Obviously, there are ways that the IP can be tracked back to the specific PC from which it originated, but I understood that performing such tracking functions is an extremely unwieldy process, requiring a court order for each case. So, I guess I don't understand what the pay-off would be to spend all that time and effort tracking each YouTube viewer IP address back to a specific PC.

Sounds like the law of diminishing marginal utility to me. Can someone explain why anyone would even want this information?


: Your ISP has your address. (none / 0) (#16)
by Edger on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:53:29 PM EST

The DHCP assigned IP they give you is recorded. So is your address with account info your ISP has for you.

Not only that (none / 0) (#26)
by daria g on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:10:45 PM EST

I've noticed lately a favorite way to leak new music (well ahead of the release date) is to post it on YouTube, just using video stills. For instance Madonna's last album, a lot of it showed up on YouTube weeks early. Should be interesting as far as what they might do in order to trace the folks that are putting those files out there.


I've gone there through links or Google search-- (none / 0) (#27)
by jawbone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:25:39 PM EST

never logged in. And having a log in is required for comments, correct?

But why can Viacom ask for each YouTube viewer--why not the viewers of whatever copywrighted video is involved?

Sounds like a fishing expedition to me--or a means of getting contact info for millions of users....

Can they do that???


This is really outrageous (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by andgarden on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:39:49 PM EST

: My 'are you effing kidding me?" (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:13:39 PM EST

moment of the day.
Sadly, there is always at least one.

Why do I have this feeling.... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by desertswine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:47:50 PM EST

Mr Davies said: "Governments and organisations are realising that companies like Google have a warehouse full of data. And while that data is stored it is under threat of being used and putting privacy in danger."
The EFF said: "The Court's erroneous ruling is a set-back to privacy rights, and will allow Viacom to see what you are watching on YouTube.

that this is gonna go straight from Viacom's mouth to the NSA's ear?

I don't get it. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by lentinel on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 07:11:30 PM EST

If this is an issue about copyright infringement, all Viacom or any interested party needs to know is the number of people viewing the particular item for which copyright protection is claimed.

There is no need to know IP addresses and the like.

It seems as if "copyright infringement" is an excuse to gather information to be used for coercive purposes by governmental agencies or their employees.

BIg Brother is getting bigger.

Another reason for Obama and the rest to vote against immunity for these cretins.

Google (4.00 / 1) (#3)
by bocajeff on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:17:29 PM EST

Likes to present itself as a benevolent corporation, but if you look at the way it does business (adsense, adwords), hoards information (not deleting emails), etc... you will find them to be the biggest group of hypocrites around. The amount of information that flows through them (and they retian most of it) is so large.

Huh? (none / 0) (#1)
by MKS on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:12:46 PM EST

This is for real? Does the word "overbroad" have any meaning?

What Did You Expect (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by flashman on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST

In the era of rampant 'eavsdropping.' I expect more of these knids of decisions.


Heh! (5.00 / 0) (#4)
by aquarian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:19:56 PM EST

Glad I am not the poor lawyer or Google employee who has to handle the discovery response/document production.


: Employee? (none / 0) (#8)
by nycstray on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:36:36 PM EST

I think they're gonna need a dedicated company! {waits for their HB1 visa request}

Is the federal district judge a George W. (none / 0) (#5)
by oculus on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:21:09 PM EST

Bush appointee?

In fact (none / 0) (#6)
by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:34:05 PM EST

Judge Stanton is a Reagan appointee.

Kinda funny that an 80-year old judge who probably has his secretary print out his email gets to decide this technology case.


Which district? Ninth Circuit I hope. (none / 0) (#10)
by oculus on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 01:58:28 PM EST

Right down the street (none / 0) (#11)
by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:30:50 PM EST

in the Southern District of New York.


How will the Court of Appeals treat (none / 0) (#12)
by oculus on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:32:35 PM EST

this trial court's ruling? Any predictions?


Well (none / 0) (#17)
by Steve M on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST

It's not even clear to me that it will get to the Court of Appeals, as it sounds like a discovery ruling to me.

If it does get to that level, I could see an appellate court narrowing the scope, but it's really anybody's guess.


appealable through contempt? (none / 0) (#23)
by aquarian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:18:48 PM EST

Google will probably have to choose between complying with the discovery order or not complying, being found in contempt of the court's order, and then appealing the contempt order.

Does Google really care about privacy rights or is this a matter of the gobs of money it will have to spend in order to turn the records over?


: Third party intervenor at trial court (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:47:45 PM EST

level, request for reconsideration, followed by request for certificate of probable cause?

Heh! Mess with their minds. And stats. (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 02:49:41 PM EST

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube?

Everytime you watch a youtube video, afterwards do a youtube search for something diametrically opposed to what you just watched... and click on it too.

Use an anonymous IP service if you're worried.

I, too, wonder what it is Viacom plans (none / 0) (#18)
by shoephone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:03:09 PM EST

to do with the information. More importantly, what is the justification for the company needing the information in the first place?

They are going to be very bored with my YouTube viewing habits. Lots of Pat Metheny, Mike Brecker, Joni Mitchell, Jackie Wilson, Sam Cooke, Wes Montgomery, John Coltrane... yep, some pretty scary stuff there.

And I have never "logged in" to the site either.

Ha! (none / 0) (#21)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:16:06 PM EST

But what is diametrically opposed to that 'You're the one that I want' dancing golden retriever video?


oops. =meant that as a reply to Edger (none / 0) (#22)
by ruffian on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:17:07 PM EST

but it works OK here too.


: Oh, ruffian (none / 0) (#24)
by shoephone on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:33:00 PM EST

now you've really peaked my interest. I have to go find that video!

LOL (none / 0) (#30)
by Jane in CA on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 05:59:15 PM EST

I guess this means I'm going to have to admit to my secret vice -- viewing Pink videos ... Who knew?


Dear Lord. (none / 0) (#19)
by jeffinalabama on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:13:34 PM EST

Between the helicopter attack in Apocolypse Now, the Gunnery Sergeant Hartman scenes in Full Metal Jacket, and Quentin Groves leading Rammer Jammer after Auburn's last Iron Bowl victory, Viacom isa gonna carry Auburn football, Vietnam movies, and oh! Carlos Gardel, in Spanish, no less!

Might be time for a change, hehehehe...

Even if the powers that be can backtrack (none / 0) (#25)
by vicndabx on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 03:41:38 PM EST

your IP, they still gotta prove who was at the PC when the copyright infringement laws were supposedly broken. Thank the Lord I'm not a "cool kid" who uses these "free" services.

Obviously A Great Investment (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 03, 2008 at 04:55:54 PM EST

I hear the US gov is buying this kind of info by the truckload.