Judge Protects YouTube’s Source Code, Throws Users To The Wolves

The ongoing Google/YouTube-Viacom litigation has now officially spilled over to users with a court order requiring Google to turn over massive amounts of user data to Viacom. If the data is actually released, the consequences could be far more serious than the 2006 AOL Search debacle.

Louis L. Stanton, the senior judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued the opinion and order, which is here (.pdf).

That data includes every YouTube username, the associated IP address and the videos that user has watched on YouTube. Google will also be required to hand over copies of every video removed from Youtube for any reason (DMCA notices or user-initiated deletions). Stanton dismissed Google’s argument that the order will violate user privacy, saying such privacy concerns are merely “speculative.”

Meanwhile, the judge denied Viacom’s request that Google turn over YouTube’s source code as it could “cause catastrophic competitive harm to Google by sharing them with others who might create their own programs without making the same investment.”

I can understand why Judge Stanton, who graduated from law school in 1955, may be completely and utterly clueless when it comes to online video services. But perhaps one of his bright young clerks or interns could have told him that (1) handing over user names and a list of videos they’ve watched to a highly litigious copyright holder is extremely likely to result in lawsuits against those users that have watched copyrighted content on YouTube, and (2) YouTube’s source code is about as valuable as the hard drive it would be delivered on, since the core Flash technology is owned by Adobe and there are countless YouTube clones out there, most of which offer higher quality video.

YouTube’s core value is in its network effect - the library of content along with its massive user base.

The privacy fallout of this ruling is spectacular. The EFF has already chimed in, noting that the order is highly likely to be in violation of federal law.

Judge Stanton doesn’t seem to care much about that law, for now. And he clearly doesn’t understand that far more data is being transferred than is necessary to comply with Viacom’s core stated concern, which is to understand the popularity of copyright infringing v. non-infringing material. Viacom has asked for far more data than that, and there’s only one use for that data: to sue individual users (or shake them down via the threat of lawsuit, which has been perfected by the RIAA) who have watched a few music videos or television shows on YouTube.

I say this with the utmost respect, but Judge Stanton is a moron. And Google simply cannot hand this data over without facing a class action lawsuit of staggering proportions.

Original post

Comments

[Tom B]

What do you expect from a Reagan appointed moron? Hopefully, this will get tossed. Not to say every GOP judge is stupid: Penfield Jackson issued a correct, complete, and well-reasoned decision in DoJ vs. MSFT (Unfortunately "W" and his band of graft-receiving cronies tossed the penalty). But THIS guy needs to re-read the Bill of Rights. In NO WAY is Viacom or any other sleazeball media company entitled to know who watches what video. If I listen to "Democracy Now" (or for that matter Rush Limbaugh) on my terrestrial car radio, is Viacom entitled to KNOW that? No way. That might reveal more about my political leanings than I want Viacom to knw. It is a free speech issue.

[Farmer448]

So when will the judge be required to take a drug test?

[gaucho]

Once you have this information then the FEDs will be able to see who has opinions that differ from the current government thinking. Let’s say you post a video that shows Bush is a lying dictator that has killed 100s of thousands of people for his rich oil buddies.

Well just put that in the hands of the political police and they will take you down with the IRS of any other means possible. Just look at what the FBI and that pervert panty wearing freak Hover did to Martin Luther King.

Hey boys they control the radio and the cable and the news papers and the radio so don't cross them because we tell you what to think. Once they get complete control of the internet you will be forced to standing on the corner on a soap box and yelling. They will then arrest you for disturbing the peace. George Orwell was just off by 28 years, the brave new world has arrived.

[Tom B]

"Well just put that in the hands of the political police and they will take you down with the IRS of any other means possible."

The Govt' can already track you. One likes to think they sometimes get a warrant to do so. But giving scum-bag media police, like Viacom, rights to engage in a "fishing expedition"? Sh*t no!

[Skjellifetti]

The US is in desperate need the kind of privacy protections that are in place in the EU. It really pisses me off when I call up the gas or cable company and they demand that I give them my SSN and mother's maiden name in order to talk to, say, a billing rep. Private enterprise collects way too much info on their customers and has no problem sharing that info with whoever they choose irrespective of whether their customers want them to share that info. We have a few select laws like HIPAA but most have no teeth like the financial privacy laws that allow your bank to share your data with their marketing affiliates who can then share it with whoever they please.