The court disagreed with Google and the public, and called Google's argument that turning over so much information would be a violation of user privacy "speculative."
By user I assume that means registered logged in users.
I'd assume it's everyone. Youtube knows your IP address when you do a download. Of course, your IP address is psuedo-static, but "they" could track that down via your ISP.
Also, something I didn't think about until just now, while I don't have a youtube account, I do have a google account. If I was logged into google (to check calendar, mail, etc.), they might be able to link my youtube activity to my google account.
The judge is either an idiot or is one of those who thinks that since the Constitution doesn't contain the word "privacy" that the people aren't entitled to it. The government may be allowing a corporation to sift through the internet activities of millions of people, but at least they're not making us give room and board to soldiers.
If I'm going to be cavity searched by Viacom at least I'm contributing my two headed deer drawing demo to the stat pool for user content.
It's interesting that Google won on turning over stats for state sex offender hunts (right?) but can't beat the awesome entitling power of Sacred Copyright.
I'm all for intellectual property rights, as they help me make a living. But this is pretty fucked up. If the media conglomerates keep this up, the backlash will be severe. Perhaps the duration of copyright should be similar to patents: 20 years.
Market pressures can sometimes work wonders: Virgin Media, plagued by a recent flurry of bad publicity thanks to its policy of working with the music industry to warn file-sharers, has announced today that there is “absolutely no possibility” that it will disconnect its users from the Internet or hand over their details to the music industry. Although perhaps google is so strong that it is beyond persuasion.
Definitely agree on limiting copyright to 20 years. And although you are seriously treated as a lunatic if you act like you believe this - copyright really was invented to benefit society, not to solely enrich the creator of an artistic piece until the end of time. The idea is that there should be a balance. Copyrights need to be just long enough so that people can recoup their investments, and *in return* the work then passes into the public domain in a reasonable time frame so that all of society benefits. 20 years seems right to me, but obviously this is arguable. But life of the creator plus 70 years? WTFBBQ?
Rights holders often act like they are entitled to keep their creations to themselves forever. In fact, I think most people unfortunately would agree with this (even as they have no problem with breaking copyrights themselves when it is convenient.) But I just don't think that's right. People already have the ability to keep creative works all to themselves forever - just don't publish them! But if you want to publish and put stuff out there for others (and reap the benefits of having your creative works be a part of the fabric of society) then you have to eventually let those works go into the public domain. That's the deal. And sooner rather than later is best for society as a whole.
I can't really tell from that article what Virgin's position is--they seem to be flopping around.
"Although perhaps google is so strong that it is beyond persuasion."
But YouTube is Google, right?
Yeah, youtube is google, that's what I mean. Virgin can be bullied by it's customers into acting correctly (although their first instinct was to screw their customers - but then they flipped as soon as they saw they might lose those customers.) But maybe google is so big that they can't be pressured (maybe youtube will turn everything over even if this means x percent of youtube users will go to one of the millions of other free video upload services.)
But I don't really think google/youtube can ignore what people want. Youtube doesn't provide anything other services don't provide - so if they turn over those records one of the upstart video sites is just going to pounce and advertise that they won't ever do that and people will migrate there.
It's not perfect, but the will of the people (customers) is pretty strong! You really need a monopoly to ignore it - and youtube is about as far from a monopoly as you can get.
Thanks for clarifying. I hope this is correct--it sounds right.
(Although people have been showing a horrible propensity of late not to care what happens to their privacy.)
I recently saw my first advertising strip at the bottom of a YouTube video--overlayed over the user content for several seconds. Those can't be too popular.
Seems like Google is still fighting to not turn over any identifying information.
Yup, they are going to anonymize the data.
|
- mark 7-03-2008 5:22 pm
By user I assume that means registered logged in users.
- tom moody 7-03-2008 7:07 pm
I'd assume it's everyone. Youtube knows your IP address when you do a download. Of course, your IP address is psuedo-static, but "they" could track that down via your ISP.
Also, something I didn't think about until just now, while I don't have a youtube account, I do have a google account. If I was logged into google (to check calendar, mail, etc.), they might be able to link my youtube activity to my google account.
The judge is either an idiot or is one of those who thinks that since the Constitution doesn't contain the word "privacy" that the people aren't entitled to it. The government may be allowing a corporation to sift through the internet activities of millions of people, but at least they're not making us give room and board to soldiers.
- mark 7-04-2008 1:44 am
If I'm going to be cavity searched by Viacom at least I'm contributing my two headed deer drawing demo to the stat pool for user content.
It's interesting that Google won on turning over stats for state sex offender hunts (right?) but can't beat the awesome entitling power of Sacred Copyright.
- tom moody 7-04-2008 5:23 am
I'm all for intellectual property rights, as they help me make a living. But this is pretty fucked up. If the media conglomerates keep this up, the backlash will be severe. Perhaps the duration of copyright should be similar to patents: 20 years.
- mark 7-04-2008 5:39 am
Market pressures can sometimes work wonders:
Although perhaps google is so strong that it is beyond persuasion.Definitely agree on limiting copyright to 20 years. And although you are seriously treated as a lunatic if you act like you believe this - copyright really was invented to benefit society, not to solely enrich the creator of an artistic piece until the end of time. The idea is that there should be a balance. Copyrights need to be just long enough so that people can recoup their investments, and *in return* the work then passes into the public domain in a reasonable time frame so that all of society benefits. 20 years seems right to me, but obviously this is arguable. But life of the creator plus 70 years? WTFBBQ?
Rights holders often act like they are entitled to keep their creations to themselves forever. In fact, I think most people unfortunately would agree with this (even as they have no problem with breaking copyrights themselves when it is convenient.) But I just don't think that's right. People already have the ability to keep creative works all to themselves forever - just don't publish them! But if you want to publish and put stuff out there for others (and reap the benefits of having your creative works be a part of the fabric of society) then you have to eventually let those works go into the public domain. That's the deal. And sooner rather than later is best for society as a whole.
- jim 7-04-2008 12:54 pm
I can't really tell from that article what Virgin's position is--they seem to be flopping around.
"Although perhaps google is so strong that it is beyond persuasion."
But YouTube is Google, right?
- tom moody 7-04-2008 1:35 pm
Yeah, youtube is google, that's what I mean. Virgin can be bullied by it's customers into acting correctly (although their first instinct was to screw their customers - but then they flipped as soon as they saw they might lose those customers.) But maybe google is so big that they can't be pressured (maybe youtube will turn everything over even if this means x percent of youtube users will go to one of the millions of other free video upload services.)
But I don't really think google/youtube can ignore what people want. Youtube doesn't provide anything other services don't provide - so if they turn over those records one of the upstart video sites is just going to pounce and advertise that they won't ever do that and people will migrate there.
It's not perfect, but the will of the people (customers) is pretty strong! You really need a monopoly to ignore it - and youtube is about as far from a monopoly as you can get.
- jim 7-04-2008 1:47 pm
Thanks for clarifying. I hope this is correct--it sounds right.
(Although people have been showing a horrible propensity of late not to care what happens to their privacy.)
I recently saw my first advertising strip at the bottom of a YouTube video--overlayed over the user content for several seconds. Those can't be too popular.
- tom moody 7-04-2008 7:38 pm
Seems like Google is still fighting to not turn over any identifying information.
- jim 7-14-2008 2:49 pm
Yup, they are going to anonymize the data.
- jim 7-15-2008 4:15 pm