Source Link

Earlier this month, a federal judge ordered Google to hand over the details of people watching videos on YouTube to Viacom.

The viewer log contains the IP addresses, usernames and details of the videos watched and uploaded by YouTube members.

Google asked Viacom to allow it to make the viewer log anonymous, but according to CNet.com, Viacom wants to know which videos Google staff have watched and, crucially, uploaded. Google has refused to comply, according to the site.

If Google staff have been uploading copyrighted material
it could blow the company's "Safe Harbour" defence under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which protects service providers from prosecution if they were unaware of the illegal acts being committed on their service.

Google has long maintained that it cannot prevent users from uploading illegally copied content, but will take down copyrighted videos when informed of their presence by the rights holder.

Google has declined to comment on the latest proceedings.

--Barry Collins/PC Pro

Google, Viacom now clashing over YouTube employee records

Posted by Greg Sandoval 22 comments

Update: at 9:05 p.m. PDT Saturday to include Viacom's response.

Viacom wants to know which videos YouTube employees have watched and uploaded to the site, and Google is refusing to provide that information, CNET News has learned.

This dispute is the reason the two companies, and lawyers representing a group of other copyright holders suing Google, have failed to reach a final agreement on anonymizing personal information belonging to YouTube users, according to two sources close to the situation.

As part of Viacom's $1 billion copyright suit against Google's YouTube, a federal judge ordered the video-sharing site two weeks ago to disclose records, such as IP addresses and usernames. Google was also supposed to turn over records that included the viewing and uploading histories of YouTube employees, according to the sources.
YouTube's employee information could prove crucial to Viacom's case against Google, as it could go a long way to proving how much knowledge YouTube has about piracy on the site.

Since the judge issued the order, Viacom has been widely criticized for attempting to encroach on the privacy of YouTube users. The parent company of MTV and Comedy Central has always said it never wanted personally identifiable information.

"Viacom suggested the initiative to anonymize the data, and we have been prepared to accept anonymous information since day one," said a Viacom spokesman.

Critics dispute that and point out that records show the judge in the case only ordered YouTube to hand over information asked for by Viacom. As for the employee records, Google said Saturday that it isn't willing to talk about anything else until that matter of user privacy is resolved.

"Viacom and other plaintiffs never should have demanded private viewing data in the first place," a Google spokesman said in an e-mail. "They should have agreed a week ago to let us anonymize it. We are willing to discuss the disclosure of viewing activity of all the relevant parties. But the simple issue of protecting user information should be resolved now. Our users' privacy should not be held hostage to advance the plaintiffs' additional litigation interests."

According to the sources, Google and Viacom were close to reaching a deal last week about masking user data when Google backed out.
YouTube graphic

Google balked over the issue of turning over information that would include data about videos employees watched or uploaded to YouTube, according to the sources. If Chad Hurley, one of YouTube's co-founders, uploaded a copyright video or viewed them, Viacom's lawyers believe they have a right to know about it, the sources said.

Google may have a tougher time with this issue than the fight to protect user information. Companies sue each other all the time and frequently turn over computer records belonging to employees when pertinent. Often, these records reveal e-mails, memos, and other documents that can shed light on events in question.

YouTube's employee information could prove crucial to Viacom's case against Google, as it could go a long way to proving how much knowledge YouTube has about piracy on the site. If YouTube employees knew what was uploaded to the site--or posted pirated clips themselves--YouTube could lose its protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

YouTube maintains that the video-sharing site is an Internet service provider and is protected by the DMCA's Safe Harbor provision, which removes liability from ISPs for illegal acts committed by users. But the DMCA requires that ISPs not have knowledge of the illegal acts or not be able to prevent them.

YouTube has always argued that it has no way to prevent users from uploading unauthorized copies of TV shows, movies, or other copyrighted material, and adheres to the DMCA by also removing infringing videos when notified by a copyright owner.

It's safe to say that many copyright owners are skeptical of these claims. For years, rumors have circulated in the technology sector that some of YouTube employees salted the site, especially in its early days, by posting clips from popular TV shows in order to bring attention to the site. No evidence of this has ever surfaced.

Google has been accused of encouraging massive copyright violations by Viacom and by a group of copyright holders represented by the Proskauer Rose law firm. The group includes the top soccer leagues in Britain and France, and U.S. television journalist Robert Tur.

Breaking News:

Lawyers in YouTube lawsuit reach user privacy deal



By Eric Auchard 45 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Defendants and plaintiffs in two related copyright infringement lawsuits against YouTube have reached a deal to protect the privacy of millions of YouTube watchers during evidence discovery, a spokesman for Google Inc said on Monday.

Earlier in July, a New York federal judge ordered Google to turn over YouTube user data to Viacom Inc and other plaintiffs to help them to prepare a confidential study of what they argue are vast piracy violations on the video-sharing site.

Google said it had now agreed to provide plaintiffs' attorneys for Viacom and a class action group led by the Football Association of England a version of a massive viewership database that blanks out YouTube username and Internet address data that could be used to identify individual video watchers.

"We have reached agreement with Viacom and the class action group," Google spokesman Ricardo Reyes said. "They have agreed to let us anonymize YouTube user data," he said.

Viacom, owner of movie studio Paramount and MTV Networks, requested the information as part of its $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against the popular online video service YouTube and its deep-pocketed parent, Google.

Judge Louis Stanton of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered Google on July 1 to turn over as evidence a database with usernames of YouTube viewers, what videos they watched when, and users' computer addresses.

Privacy activists from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other groups argued in response that the order "threatens to expose deeply private information" and violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, a 1988 law passed after Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork's video rental habits were revealed.

Viacom said at the time that it needed the data to demonstrate video piracy patterns that are the heart of its case against YouTube. But it sought to diffuse privacy fears, saying it had no interest in identifying individual users.

One outstanding disagreement between the two parties is on how to handle the YouTube viewership data of YouTube and Google employees, which Judge Stanton also had ordered YouTube to turn over as part of the July 1 ruling covering YouTube consumers.

Reyes said the agreement covered not just employees of the defendants, but also those of companies tied to the plaintiffs, including Viacom and the Football Association Premiere League.

In a legal stipulation agreed to by attorneys for all major parties in the case, the sides agreed that the new data privacy agreement did not cover employees and that they would work out how to share this data separately in coming weeks.

YouTube faces two separate, but parallel lawsuits, that for purposes of preliminary motions and evidence discovery are being treated as one. Viacom filed the first lawsuit, and a separate class action was later filed by English Premiere League soccer, several other European sports leagues, along with music publishers and videographers. The cases are unlikely to come to trial before 2009 or 2010.

(Reporting by Eric Auchard, editing by Will Waterman)

Viacom doesn't care who watched the videos. They want to know who posted them.

at slashdot, fumblebruschi (831320) on Tuesday July 15, @01:47PM (#24199605)
says:

"As I understand it, Google bought Youtube *specifically because* Viacom was going to sue. Youtube didn't have the resources to fight a lawsuit from Viacom, so they would have had to settle and the most likely outcome would be that Viacom would end up owning Youtube's technology (which they would shelve) and patents (which they would use to stop other companies, Google included, from developing a Youtube equivalent.) So Google bought Youtube in order that Viacom would have to sue Google, which does have the resources to fight the lawsuit (also, presumably, Google thinks it can win it) and Google will wind up owning the technology and free from patent interference."

Good assessment IMHO.

They are fighting for control of the "pipe".

The logic behind Viacom's position is as loopy as if YouTube/Google said Viacom couldn't sue for copyright violations if it was found that any of Viacom's employee's or the employee's of licensed properties uploaded anything Viacom had copyrighted to YouTube.

It is also beginning to look like Viacom could be on what in the legal community is called a fishing expedition. Hopefully the judge will remind Viacom the limit put on his original ruling and tell them they continue down this path they could get slapped with contempt charges.