

Judge Protects YouTube’s Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves - jasonlbaptiste
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/03/judge-protects-youtubes-source-code-throws-users-to-the-wolves/

======
nadim
The EFF link is much better than the TC one:
[http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-
expos...](http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-expose-
viewing-habits-youtube-us#)

"Google correctly argued that “the data should not be disclosed because of the
users’ privacy concerns,” citing the VPPA, 18 U.S.C. § 2710. However, the
Court dismissed this argument with no analysis, stating “defendants cite no
authority barring them from disclosing such information in civil discovery
proceedings, and their privacy concerns are speculative.""

Anyone disagree that this is a good reason to stop using Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo
Mail/Google Docs/etc?

~~~
jrockway
_Anyone disagree that this is a good reason to stop using Gmail/Hotmail/Yahoo
Mail/Google Docs/etc?_

It's a good reason to remember that you don't have any privacy when using
other people's servers.

------
vaksel
Instead of being pissed at the judge, people should be pissed at
youtube/google for actually keeping track of what videos every single user/ip
watched. Just goes to show that Google is most likely tracking every single
thing you do online

~~~
nadim
Here is a staggering list of items Google definitely tracks:
[http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-evil-side-of-google-
exploring...](http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-evil-side-of-google-exploring-
googles-user-data-collection#list)

When I look under Medical Records and think of cross referencing potential I
grow a little concerned.

~~~
jrockway
Why are people so afraid of their medical records leaking out? Honestly, I'm
more concerned about my YouTube viewing history than my drug allergies.

~~~
jcl
You sound as if you are more concerned about your YouTube history because you
have more to hide there than in your medical history. Surely you can imagine
people for whom the opposite is true -- where some otherwise innocuous medical
fact would hurt them if made public?

...Like people who adopted but don't want their kids to know, people who have
recovered from cancer, people with mental conditions, people treated for STDs,
people with sex changes, people who have had (even a false-) positive HIV
test, people with a history of drug abuse, people who have had abortions, etc.
Some reasons are just embarrassing, some may get you turned down from a job,
some are blackmail material that could end a marriage or political career.

~~~
jrockway
_some may get you turned down from a job_

This is not something I worry about. If someone won't hire you because of a
medical condition, you didn't want to work for them anyway. Better to find
that out before you're entrenched.

 _some are blackmail material that could end a marriage or political career_

Why keep records of things you don't want people to know about?

~~~
jcl
_This is not something I worry about. If someone won't hire you because of a
medical condition, you didn't want to work for them anyway. Better to find
that out before you're entrenched._

Maybe, maybe not. The machinations of hiring are not necessarily
representative of the rest of the work environment. And if a person with a
politically unpopular medical condition gets turned down from a job, they
won't know the reason. They're unlikely to say "Thank goodness I didn't get
hired." -- more likely: "I wonder if my condition had any influence on the
decision." These people would be much happier with greater confidentiality.

 _Why keep records of things you don't want people to know about?_

In case they are medically relevant. It's not clear from the Google summary
whether the patient has editorial control over the contents of their medical
records, but it's not hard to imagine a service where they do not -- no doctor
wants a patient to be able to remove notes on drug dependency issues from
their file. Lists of operations and medications are medically relevant and
potentially embarrassing; even something as simple as a list of vaccinations
can tell you where a person grew up, which could be a politically sensitive
issue.

------
god
"And Google simply cannot hand this data over without facing a class action
lawsuit of staggering proportions."

Is it true, that a company could be hold liable for things they do because a
court said they have to?

~~~
raganwald
Watch "The Insider." A key element of the trial was the employer's insistence
that testifying under subpoena was still a violation of the non-disclosure
agreement.

------
froo
Not good.

I understand and respect Viacom's need to protect their copyright, everyone
should have the right to be able to profit out of their intellectual property
- but this hard hitting approach is over the top.

All this action does is promote a virtual 'arms race' when it comes too
copyright violation.

The media companies shut down Napster early on in the game and in the process,
opened a pandoras box. Better technologies have emerged with every subsequent
shutdown.

At least with Napster they could have contained the problem, but instead are
just shooting themselves in the foot.

I guess this is the price they pay for their heavy handed approach.

------
gizmo
YouTube's business model:

1\. Get venture capital

2\. Get popular by distributing copyrighted content on massive scale.

3\. Don't remove copyrighted content when asked to by holder.

4\. Get more venture capital

5\. Attract attention from large copyright holders. Remove their content, but
only by explicit request. Know that the same content will be uploaded the day
after you remove it.

6\. Keep growing by distributing copyrighted content.

7\. Get bought for an insane amount by Google

8\. Stay a seperate legal entity because uh... you know. The whole business
model is shady.

Makes perfect sense to go after the users. After all, they don't have VC money
to defend themselves with.

~~~
jrockway
9\. YouTube goes out of business.

10\. People pirate TV clips somewhere else.

11\. Wait, Google wasn't the problem here.

 _Makes perfect sense to go after the users. After all, they don't have VC
money to defend themselves with._

Considering the FBI didn't get very far prosecuting people who viewed a (fake)
child porn site, I doubt millions of people will be sued for _perhaps_ viewing
10 minutes of a TV show. Especially since the TV show was being broadcast
through everyone's brains anyway.

------
goodkarma
There is a surprisingly large amount of copyrighted content on YouTube and
Google Video.

If I search for something, and find it, and watch it once, am I really the one
they should be going after??

After all, Google is the one with the BILLIONS of dollars.. _and_ they are the
ones hosting the content to begin with.

Or is this just a case where a big corporation like Viacom is going to try to
go after a bunch of nobodys like me because it is easier to scare us with big
lawsuits and the threat of owing them hundreds of thousands of dollars.. all
because I watched a couple clips of Jon Stewart on YouTube?

~~~
jcl
I think lawsuits against _viewers_ is purely speculation by TechCrunch. IANAL,
but I think pinning a copyright violation on a viewer would be very difficult,
because the viewer is in a poor position to know the legality of a given clip
-- especially prior to downloading it -- which implies that the uploader, not
the downloader, is responsible for any violation. I'd guess this is why to
date the RIAA and MPAA have only gone after P2P uploaders and BitTorrent users
(where each user is both an uploader and downloader).

Just think... if merely clicking on a link were a copyright violation, Rick
Astley would be a billionaire. :)

~~~
goodkarma
I agree that it is a stretch, but so is chasing down folks that may or may not
have downloaded one movie from BitTorrent.
[http://www.shawnhogan.com/2005/11/loeb-and-loeb-mpaa-
extorti...](http://www.shawnhogan.com/2005/11/loeb-and-loeb-mpaa-
extortion.html)

Obviously the RIAA and MPAA etc. have a hard-on for this kind of thing right
now. My hunch is that Viacom is trying to acquire as much data as it can to
try to do the same thing.

------
pavelludiq
What about the rest of us who were blessed with not being born in the USA?
Should i be worried that some ninja cop will brake in my home and take my pc
and sue me for watching youtube? It all sound ridiculous.

~~~
jrockway
Yes, you should worry. Other countries are gutless followers of whatever the
US tells them to do. If we make a law over here, you can bet the US will make
you pass a similar law.

~~~
pavelludiq
Actually they won't make us. Bulgarian politicians are known for being the
biggest ass kissers in Europe so we will pass it before the USA just to look
obedient. We had some copyright media debates a while ago when the police
tried to arrest a few torrent uploaders and there were a lot of protests. A
mother on tv said that her 13 year old sun is not a criminal because of the
music he "steels" he just likes music and if you get something given to you
for free, you don't buy. The result from the whole police action was an
embarrassment for the government and a few torrent trackers either moving
abroad or shutting down and 99% of the windows copies in Bulgaria are still
illegal, and 99% of the music people listen to in their homes is still illegal
and i only buy cd's from local bands(directly, that way i know where the money
goes)* and i only use open source software(except my non free drivers and my
flash plug-in) But im an exception, most people in the world are criminals.

*Yes i do own illegal mp3s, about 4000 of them, and about half of those you cant buy in a store(try finding an Argentinian hardcore punk band in a record store) I also have a few CC licensed mp3's but they are very few of those. And i have a handful of local cd's and a tape which i bought directly from the bands or from friends of the bands, and those CD's are limited editions, the bands cant afford more than 200-300 cd's and they resell them by hand. Many of the songs cant be found in the internet too, some fans are realy loyal. Guess when you don't sue them for ripping mp3's sending them to friends, the fans actually respect you. I know a lot of people who buy cd's because they want to help their favorite bands, they go to shows and buy shirts and other merchandise just to support the bands.

