ruh-roh....

[lagilman]

Watch YouTube? Might want to do it on someone else's computer...

Google must divulge the viewing habits of every user who has ever watched any video on YouTube, a US court has ruled. The ruling comes as part of Google's legal battle with Viacom over allegations of copyright infringement.

Digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called the ruling a "set-back to privacy rights".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7488009.stm

So, is this going to change anyone's habits? (I'm not a YouTube viewer, except when directed to a specific link, so it's not affecting me beyond the 'they're doing what?' nerve the government keeps twanging)

Comments

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

I'm like you. I only watch when I see a specific link.


Why does Viacom want our information anyway? To go after us who watched the stupid videos? Or more likely, to go after those who uploaded the videos that are copyrighted, I bet.

Wonder how many accounts will be closed over this.

[wyldemusick.livejournal.com]

They want it because it's a great marketing tool once the data is crunched and analyzed. The value of it is well in excess of what they've so far paid for it. It could give them an edge over other corporate monoliths in the same business.

I'm betting that their being able to get hold of this data will cause a goldrush effect as the remaining monoliths come hunting for their copy of the thing.

[wolfsilveroak.livejournal.com]

Except.. they aren't getting the *coding* for YouTube. All they are getting is user data. Which other than tracking who watches what, really, does nothing for them. And Viacom hasn't really paid anything for the user data, it was court ordered to be given to them.

If they were getting the coding for YouTube, then yes, they could use it to start up their own video site and rake in the money.

I think they want to user info to go after the people who uploaded copyrighted material, is all.

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

The hell? I watch links, and a few fan-created vids, which get pulled from time to time anyway, either by YouTube or the creator. Why on *earth* do they want to know that?

[neutronjockey.livejournal.com]

My question is whether or not they are doing this to bust individual users for watching copyrighted material or ... I'm just not really seeing how this helps in Viacom . I mean according to the article: Viacom said it wanted the data to "compare the attractiveness of allegedly infringing video with that of non-infringing videos."

Weak sauce Viacom. Weak sauce.

Will it change my viewing habits? Probably not unless I catch wind that they're prosecuting folks for viewing the matierial (I don't upload or rip stuff to youtube that is copyrighted).

[ilvack.livejournal.com]

My habits aren't going to change too much, but I know the habits of my girlfriend will. I've never been one to watch much TV, but she is always catching up with her shows whenever she hops on my computer.

I don't understand why it's an issue watching these things on Youtube. It seems like it would be exactly the same as recording it and letting someone borrow the tape.

Ugh...Next thing you know, they'll be monitoring my telephone conversations without my...oh wait.

[house-draven.livejournal.com]

I don't think I've ever watched a big copyright violation; the small ones in the form of fan vids, yah.

Let 'em sue me.

[sfmarty.livejournal.com]

jebus.

[wyldemusick.livejournal.com]

It's a godsend for Viacom, as the usefulness of the data transcends what they say they want it for, and the value of it is way beyond what it's cost them to get it. It comes down to marketing, rather than intellectual property, just as the basic suit comes down to the MPAA affiliated organizations trying to prop up the old business model.