So what did you watch on YouTube? Was it legal?

[Williebee]

A judge has ordered YouTube to turn over ALL of it's video streaming logs (http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=116445) to Viacom.

The data would not be publicly released but disclosed only to the plaintiffs, and it would include less specific identifiers than a user's real name or e-mail address. Lawyers for Google Inc., which owns YouTube, said producing 12 terabytes of data - equivalent to the text of roughly 12 million books - would be expensive, time-consuming and a threat to users' privacy.
The database includes information on when each video gets played, which can be used to determine how often a clip is viewed.
Attached to each entry is each viewer's unique login ID and the Internet Protocol, or IP, address for that viewer's computer.

[Siddow]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W91sqAs-_-g) is the last thing I watched on youtube, and now I can't get it out of my head.

[Cranky]

Great. Now I'm going to get sued for watching videos of crappy hair bands. That is cosmically funny. I oughta be sued for bad taste!

[Williebee]

This is the last thing I watched on youtube, and now I can't get it out of my head.

Yeah. Like I'm gonna get suckered into clicking on a link... that.... easy....


AAAUUUGH!! SIDDOW, you evil..... :)

[Sarita]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W91sqAs-_-g) is the last thing I watched on youtube, and now I can't get it out of my head.
You are NOT NICE!!!!

This (http://youtube.com/watch?v=t9SaKYFR6ms) is the last thing I watched. I'm a youtube junkie.

[Robert Toy]

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W91sqAs-_-g) is the last thing I watched on youtube, and now I can't get it out of my head.
Is it just me, or are they dancing to a different tune?

[Williebee]

This (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IDtdQ8bTvRc) the last thing I watched, but then, I work for schools.

If this turns out to mean that all of these great educational clips disappear, I know some teachers who are going to be really bummed.

[InfinityGoddess]

Last thing I watched on YouTube was Hellsing Ultimate OVAs 1-3...

[Robert Toy]

You are NOT NICE!!!!

This (http://youtube.com/watch?v=t9SaKYFR6ms) is the last thing I watched. I'm a youtube junkie.
:roll:

[maestrowork]

My all time favorite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxc6UCHAuCs).

[robeiae]

What is "YouTube"? Does it have something to do with "surfing" on the "world wide spider web"?

[Williebee]

Maestro, that is just wrong! :)

ok, who can I inflict this on....

[robeiae]

My all time favorite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxc6UCHAuCs).
That's Haggis, isn't it?

[Sarita]

My all time favorite (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yxc6UCHAuCs).
I prefer the extended (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjaFsXOS-y8&feature=related) version... :D

[kristie911]

Fortunately, I can't watch YouTube because I'm still on dial-up. I say fortunately because I would be a total junkie if I had access.

That said, I did wait an hour to watch the video of my boyfriend tazing (tasing? tasering? not sure what the proper verb is) a guy that was being an asshole (it was the police video from his in car camera). That was totally worth the wait. :)

I'd provide the link but it would take too long...and it may not even be on there anymore. The guy posted it after aquiring it through FOIA but wasn't very happy that no one took his side.

[benbradley]

I am such a nerd, but the last three videos I watched (other than the ones I just watched that yall linked to - something about large American lumps, right?) were on ted.com.

Siddow's link reminds me of this 'compton' cover (warning, has very dirty words and really nasty epiteths, just like the original, so Siddow, don't let the kids hear) at the bottom of this page (sorry, no video for this, but youtube has the video for the original 'compton'):
http://ninagordon.com/media
Yeah, let's hear it for those sensitive singer-songwriters out there.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Criminals. I'll have you know I've got all your names and I've turned them over to the FBI.

I haven't watched youtube in months.

[Williebee]

Love Ted.com. The Ted talks are amazing stuff.

[WordlyVision]

Great. Now I'm going to get sued for watching videos of crappy hair bands. That is cosmically funny. I oughta be sued for bad taste!

I'm sure they'd have a laugh or two. Maybe they'll agree with you and just take the videos themselves down for that reason. :D

If you get sued by anybody, it won't be by Viacom. Viacom faces contempt of court if they even so much as get someone from their side to look at the data let alone use the data from Google for any other purpose besides trying to prove their original premise: YouTube is a haven for pirating videos and general piracy. In other words, they can't look at each individual IP address and go after those individuals, number one: Like I said, they face contempt of court, and number two: It's illogical; there are millions (perhaps billions) of pieecs of data to sort through from a bunch of 4TB hard drives. The effort and time it would take them to go after every single individual is just not worth it.

Google is asking the court for permission to anonymize the data so that there would be no possible way that the individual records could be traced. So they wouldn't be able to tell you watched those videos about hair bands. :D

The last thing I watched on YouTube was a Howcast video on how to build your own laser security system (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zQK1kTh57Fk), and the one before that was on how to pick a lock.

[maestrowork]

I prefer the extended (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjaFsXOS-y8&feature=related) version... :D

Gregarious is the BOMB!

[maestrowork]

On a serious note, I am very amazed by how much copyrighted material is on YouTube and wonder how they can get away with that. Do they have some kind of blanket copyright protection policies? I know some studios (the Jimmy Kimmel Show, for example) have granted specific permission -- it's publicity for them. But not all do.

Would some kind of copyright infringement shakedown finally kill YouTube, as they did with Napster in the late 90s.

[Cranky]

I'm sure they'd have a laugh or two. Maybe they'll agree with you and just take the videos themselves down for that reason. :D

If you get sued by anybody, it won't be by Viacom. Viacom faces contempt of court if they even so much as get someone from their side to look at the data let alone use the data from Google for any other purpose besides trying to prove their original premise: YouTube is a haven for pirating videos and general piracy. In other words, they can't look at each individual IP address and go after those individuals, number one: Like I said, they face contempt of court, and number two: It's illogical; there are millions (perhaps billions) of pieecs of data to sort through from a bunch of 4TB hard drives. The effort and time it would take them to go after every single individual is just not worth it.

Google is asking the court for permission to anonymize the data so that there would be no possible way that the individual records could be traced. So they wouldn't be able to tell you watched those videos about hair bands. :D

The last thing I watched on YouTube was a Howcast video on how to build your own laser security system (http://youtube.com/watch?v=zQK1kTh57Fk), and the one before that was on how to pick a lock.

Oh, I know. I was just trying to be funny. Alas, I slipped on the banana peel and have fallen flat on my ass instead. :(

Good info, though, thanks!

[WordlyVision]

I know YouTube has built something of a Copyright detection system which -- in my opinion -- very badly tries automates the process of finding infringing videos and deleting them on a whim. How it does this? From what I can remember -- if correctly, it uses a specific algorithm (metadata like tags, publisher, title, etc.) matching to certain frames of a video in a database or something, but I'd have to check on some articles to be absolutely certain.

YouTube has been a little more than slow introducing this tool onto the site, and just YouTube's lack of action against copyrighted video content in general is a small part of what's started this up.

YouTube tried the safe-harbor thing to try and counter this, saying that they're in the clear as long as they make efforts to actively -- and there's the keyword actively -- remove any content that is obscene, violent, promotes hate, is humiliating, infringing on copyright, ... etc. The problem is that YouTube (or Google moreso) has been slow to get this tool going, let alone manually removing such video. One of the major factors is that YouTube doesn't have (or so I'm thinking they don't have) enough resources (aka employees with experience in such matters) to set up a team of dedicated people to troll YouTube and remove objectionable material.

The other thing is that the actual removing of infringing content isn't done unless the video is flagged by other users, and you can guess how well that works.

[WordlyVision]

Oh, I know. I was just trying to be funny. Alas, I slipped on the banana peel and have fallen flat on my ass instead. :(

Good info, though, thanks!

Sorry,

It was funny indeed, and I made a poor attempt at trying to add to it I guess.

[Shadow_Ferret]

On a serious note, I am very amazed by how much copyrighted material is on YouTube and wonder how they can get away with that. Do they have some kind of blanket copyright protection policies? I know some studios (the Jimmy Kimmel Show, for example) have granted specific permission -- it's publicity for them. But not all do.

Would some kind of copyright infringement shakedown finally kill YouTube, as they did with Napster in the late 90s.
I've thought about that myself. I remember years ago when they were going to release to DVD the original seasons of Saturday Night Live, they were all going to be released without any of the music acts.

Why?

Because they didn't have permission. It would have violated copyright.

So yeah, how does youtube get away with it?

[Bubastes]

Enforcement takes time and resources, and YouTube hasn't figured out how to manage all that yet.

[Siddow]

Ya know, the post about lock-picking and laser security made me think; my son is learning to play guitar through youtube. It's rawkin' awesome, because the guys who set up the lessons play AC/DC, Led Zepplin, etc...I'm sure they don't have permission to perform these songs in a public venue like that (ya know, judging by the whole moms-basement background in the vids).

I'd hate to see them get taken down.

[WordlyVision]

I feel the same... there's a lot of good things to YouTube, and educational videos such as are a great medium to learn from. Viacom is going after YouTube in an attempt to get compensated for damages that they believe are the result of YouTube's very existence.

I can see the good in trying to protect your intellectual property, but when you get on such a broad issue such as this, it also overshadows the good that could come from it. Yes, YouTube might have more pirated content than legitimate content, but when you use intellectual property protection as a reason to remove videos, it also hurts the good that could come of YouTube; there are a lot of videos on there that are beneficial and could be taken down because they somehow fall into this category of "infringing content" one way or another. This issue of balance and a happy medium has always been an issue with any website that allows users to share content. The notion is the same for P2P networks like LimeWire and FrostWire.

What about "fair use"? Interestingly, Siddow's example of using videos for educational purposes or teaching -- including the content in these videos that would be potentially infringing -- could be an example of applying the "fair use" doctrine:


Notwithstanding the provisions of sections and , the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

[Cranky]

Sorry,

It was funny indeed, and I made a poor attempt at trying to add to it I guess.

LOL! No problem, honest. That was good info, so thanks for sharing it. :)

[TerzaRima]

Maestro, that scarred me for life.

[TerzaRima]

Okay, I'll see you cheesy Finnish TV stars and raise you this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSvJwUFI_es&eurl=http://www.theperfectworld.us/thread.php?id=2337&postNum=321).

[WordlyVision]

A judge has ordered YouTube to turn over ALL of it's video streaming logs (http://www.thisdayonline.com/nview.php?id=116445) to Viacom.


Google is asking the court for permission to anonymize the data so that there would be no possible way that the individual records could be traced.

An update that will perhaps bring relief to most concerned individuals...

Per CNET's News.com, Google and Viacom have reached an agreement to mask user data (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-9985394-93.html?tag=nefd.top) and logs relating to YouTube's video streaming logs and unique identifiers attached to them. This includes users' viewing history.

However, from a similar report by the Associated Press, Google must still allow specific videos to be tracked to a specific identity using other unique identifiers.

For background, a commenter on the report gave reference to an article from a week ago in which the author outlined the opinion that granted and denied (http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=565&doc_id=158450&F_src=flftwo) some motions from Viacom in the litigation.

[cethklein]

This (http://youtube.com/watch?v=WgngO2IXjeI) is my new favorite video (he has others involving other inanimate objects but this one is the most satisfying)