Google to hand over YouTube user data

[retromodcoza]

Viacom's claimed desire for the data is to increase google's liability in this case (and increase the compensation claim that they will wish to make) not to pursue the individual users hence they do not require personally identifiable info and yet they demanded it anyway. Funny that?

They do need the users personal information. So many hits to a certain video is not going to be sufficient evidence for the court. You are going to need each individual viewing , who viewed it , for how long , and evaluate whether Google profited from it or not. The violation wasn't the fault of Google , but apparently they are guilty anyway by aiding and abetting it :

--------intentionally avoid preventing Internet users from putting clips of Viacom's copyrighted television programs on YouTube.------

And Google HAVE profited from Viacoms content , unlike the user. So theres Viacoms loss there. If Viacom can prove that Google turned a blind eye - then Google is in the S%$# as well as the user.

I don't think you have any understanding of this case. Viacom are not pushing this case as a way to get their material off of youtube but rather to fleece google's deep pockets for quick and easy money.

Google profited from Viacoms content through Adsense ads , and their liability will be limited to that amount. They are not "fleecing pockets" here - they are only suing for the amount of damage. The amount of damage will be determined by the courts according to the book - and not by Viacom or Google

There is no independent proof of any damage, anywhere, ever. These sort of cases are the death-throws of a dying business model.

What about Googles profiteering off Viacoms content. Isn't that Viacoms loss?

The judge in his infinite ignorance has violated the privacy of millions of people in and out of the United States in order to grease the pockets of a dirty corporation.

The information will be kept confidential , and it is likely to be used for purposes of administration by a machine and then destroyed afterwards - simply because a human couldn't process all that data. There would be no privacy violation in it.

Unfortunately in America justice is for sale to the highest bidder. The problem for viacom here is that unlike the old grannies and single moms that the RIAA and MPAA normally go after, google has a ton of money sitting around and a corporate image to uphold.

American judges don't suddenly judge unfairly because large amounts of money are involved. The law is there - if you break it you pay. You are using a lot of emotive language to try and sway this to make it look like those people weren't guilty. They probably were.

I fully expect this ruling to be appealed and overturned in short order.

We'll see. If it is overturned , however , then im going to set up a site - have my users rip all the content from mybroadband off it and post it up - and theres nothing anyone can do about it. You can complain , but if you take me to court - I'll win. How is that for fair?

As for "They did not undertake this case to grab money", why else would they be pursuing this case for extreme damages and trying to increase google's liability in the case if it wasn't about the money? Considering that google provide a number of measures that allow companies to report copyrighted material and have it removed?

They need to be fully compensated for the profits resulting from their content. Google provide these measures in bad faith - most people won't complain and they know this. They profit from it.

If this case is overturned they know they can get away with it and will carry on and say "Here look - you can complain!!" , and people will complain and lose in court.

 

[icyrus]

They do need the users personal information. So many hits to a certain video is not going to be sufficient evidence for the court. You are going to need each individual viewing , who viewed it , for how long , and evaluate whether it caused loss or not. The violation wasn't the fault of Google , but apparently they are guilty anyway by aiding and abetting it :

Utter tripe. There is zero justification for personally identifiable info. It is irrelevant and a violation of the users privacy, many of which do not fall under the jurisdiction of American courts.

--------intentionally avoid preventing Internet users from putting clips of Viacom's copyrighted television programs on YouTube.------

And Google HAVE profited from Viacoms content , unlike the user. So theres Viacoms loss there. If Viacom can prove that Google turned a blind eye - then Google is in the S%$# as well as the user.

Google respond to take-down notification as is there responsibility and as such are protected under the safe-harbour laws for content providers. Viacom, seeing a chance to get a fat payout want to overturn that.

Google profited from Viacoms content through Adsense ads , and their liability will be limited to that amount. They are not "fleecing pockets" here - they are only suing for the amount of damage. The amount of damage will be determined by the courts according to the book - and not by Viacom or Google

Read up on statutory damages and the ridiculous rulings that the RIAA have been granted by incompetent judges.

The information will be kept confidential , and it is likely to be used for purposes of administration by a machine and then destroyed afterwards - simply because a human couldn't process all that data. There would be no privacy violation in it.

Sure. And santa will bring you lots of presents this year if you're a good boy.

We'll see. If it is overturned , however , then im going to set up a site - have my users rip all the content from mybroadband off it and post it up - and theres nothing anyone can do about it.

I would be very interest to know how American law is applicable to you and this site. Very interested indeed.

Google provide these measures in bad faith - most people won't complain and they know this. They profit from it.

More tosh. Google's only obligation under current law is to respond to take-down notices and copyright holders claim all the time. Even for content they don't actually own and, amazingly enough, google actually takes it down.

Maybe it is time for you to do some actual reading on this case:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080703111013598