Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Google Hands 12 Terabytes of Data to Viacom; How Much is About You?
Earlier this month Viacom demanded that Google hand over identifying information on Youtube users.
Why? Because 4.1 billion videos are there, about 38% of all videos online.
And some of them, are copyrighted. That means there is money to be made. Lots of it.
As, Mark Getty, founder of Getty Images, once said, "Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st century."
PHOTO: Members of the Raging Grannies and Veterans for Peace campaign for Internet Freedom
Why? Because 4.1 billion videos are there, about 38% of all videos online.
And some of them, are copyrighted. That means there is money to be made. Lots of it.
As, Mark Getty, founder of Getty Images, once said, "Intellectual Property is the oil of the 21st century."
PHOTO: Members of the Raging Grannies and Veterans for Peace campaign for Internet Freedom
*The Right to Anonymity*
Think for a moment, about how speech works in public. If you hear someone in a restaurant sing part of a commercial jingle, you might recognize the content. But would you recognize the person?
It's an interesting thing to think about online. Because suddenly, that's exactly what a few people can do online. On July 1st, Viacom demanded that Google hand over identifying information on Youtube users. Why? Because 4.1 billion videos are there, about 38% of all videos online.
And some of them, are copyrighted.
I'll leave you a moment to gasp in horror.
Then I'll ask you if that should matter. And why should it matter? After all, I see hundreds of thousands of images and words each day. Most of them are probably copyrighted. It would be almost impossible for any stranger to guess what I looked at on any given day. And then came the internet. And now it's possible for any number of companies to track my viewing habits, without my permission or knowledge.
The closest analogy I can think of, is if the Nielsens were entitled to peer into my windows, to see what I was watching and when I changed the channel on my TV. And that creeps me out. I do not belong to the market. If Viacom wants to know what I like watching, they can ask the Nielsen people, because that's what they're there for. I do not need the internet to become a window into my home and my habits retroactively.
There are many companies that would leap at the chance to know all our political ideas. Or how many socks I purchase a year. The fact is, I simply don't want to be followed like this. The expectation of privacy and anonymity in our day to day affairs is not something we should sacrifice without due consideration.
But its becoming resoundingly clear that it is not my choice to make. For an excellent examination of the legal details and implications of this decision, please see this article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-expose-viewing-habits-youtube-us
And then consider joining the Youtube Revolution. At least if we name every video "Viacom Sucks" or "Colbert Report", they will have a harder time finding their own material.
http://www.media-alliance.org/article.php?story=20080708174812680
Think for a moment, about how speech works in public. If you hear someone in a restaurant sing part of a commercial jingle, you might recognize the content. But would you recognize the person?
It's an interesting thing to think about online. Because suddenly, that's exactly what a few people can do online. On July 1st, Viacom demanded that Google hand over identifying information on Youtube users. Why? Because 4.1 billion videos are there, about 38% of all videos online.
And some of them, are copyrighted.
I'll leave you a moment to gasp in horror.
Then I'll ask you if that should matter. And why should it matter? After all, I see hundreds of thousands of images and words each day. Most of them are probably copyrighted. It would be almost impossible for any stranger to guess what I looked at on any given day. And then came the internet. And now it's possible for any number of companies to track my viewing habits, without my permission or knowledge.
The closest analogy I can think of, is if the Nielsens were entitled to peer into my windows, to see what I was watching and when I changed the channel on my TV. And that creeps me out. I do not belong to the market. If Viacom wants to know what I like watching, they can ask the Nielsen people, because that's what they're there for. I do not need the internet to become a window into my home and my habits retroactively.
There are many companies that would leap at the chance to know all our political ideas. Or how many socks I purchase a year. The fact is, I simply don't want to be followed like this. The expectation of privacy and anonymity in our day to day affairs is not something we should sacrifice without due consideration.
But its becoming resoundingly clear that it is not my choice to make. For an excellent examination of the legal details and implications of this decision, please see this article from the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/07/court-ruling-will-expose-viewing-habits-youtube-us
And then consider joining the Youtube Revolution. At least if we name every video "Viacom Sucks" or "Colbert Report", they will have a harder time finding their own material.
http://www.media-alliance.org/article.php?story=20080708174812680
For more information:
http://www.eff.org
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Google has struck a deal to protect the personal data of millions of YouTube users in the $1bn (£497m) copyright court case brought against the video-sharing website by Viacom.
Under the deal, Google will make user information and internet protocol addresses from its YouTube subsidiary anonymous before handing over the data to Viacom in the US legal case.
Earlier this month a judge in New York ordered Google to pass on the personal data of more than 100 million YouTube users - many of them in the UK - to Viacom.
Viacom, the media company that owns TV channels including MTV and Comedy Central and the Paramount film studio, had demanded the information so it could conduct a detailed examination of the viewing habits of millions of YouTube users around the world.
The agreement that Google has struck also applies to other litigants pursuing YouTube user information over copyright claims in a class action that includes the FA Premier League, the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organisation and the Scottish Premier League.
More
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/15/googlethemedia.digitalmedia
Under the deal, Google will make user information and internet protocol addresses from its YouTube subsidiary anonymous before handing over the data to Viacom in the US legal case.
Earlier this month a judge in New York ordered Google to pass on the personal data of more than 100 million YouTube users - many of them in the UK - to Viacom.
Viacom, the media company that owns TV channels including MTV and Comedy Central and the Paramount film studio, had demanded the information so it could conduct a detailed examination of the viewing habits of millions of YouTube users around the world.
The agreement that Google has struck also applies to other litigants pursuing YouTube user information over copyright claims in a class action that includes the FA Premier League, the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organisation and the Scottish Premier League.
More
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/15/googlethemedia.digitalmedia
Why is Google now a good guy in all the Viacom/Google controversy over YouTube user IP adresses and other personal information?
Raging Grannies have been demonstrating at Google in Mountain View, California over other issues (their refusal to address hotel workers rights when they tried to work out a deal with the city of Mountain View to build a conference center/hotel on city property) and now we have to ask:
Why did Google amass personal information on YouTube users in the first place, and what might they do with it?
Raging Grannies have been demonstrating at Google in Mountain View, California over other issues (their refusal to address hotel workers rights when they tried to work out a deal with the city of Mountain View to build a conference center/hotel on city property) and now we have to ask:
Why did Google amass personal information on YouTube users in the first place, and what might they do with it?
For more information:
http://www.RagingGrannies.com
if you use a service, they should have the right to collect information for their own use. i am less unnerved by the fact that google has assembled the record, because that's what corporations do. they bought youtube because they knew how popular it was, based off their own search records.
i am far more upset by the way we rely on these services, yet cannot trust them to abide by the 4th amendment. further, the judge in this particular case seems to believe we users have absolutely no claim on our data. even if it is "anonymized", there is still enough information to build a profile for users based off their viewing habits. even if they didn't know my user id, they could figure out all my interests. i believe this is exactly what the vppa was designed to prevent. my rights should not be contingent on certain technologies.
even worse, the way we use youtube makes it very hard to guarantee anonymity. even if your ip address and username are scrambled you might have uploaded a video of yourself with your personal data. viacom can demand access to exactly that kind of information, while they claim to be hunting illegal clips of the colbert report.
i don't see a good guy or a bad guy here. google might be the most ethical company in the world for all i know, but the fact is, they have become our library. we need to be careful going forward that our use of this incredible resource can not be used against us.
i am far more upset by the way we rely on these services, yet cannot trust them to abide by the 4th amendment. further, the judge in this particular case seems to believe we users have absolutely no claim on our data. even if it is "anonymized", there is still enough information to build a profile for users based off their viewing habits. even if they didn't know my user id, they could figure out all my interests. i believe this is exactly what the vppa was designed to prevent. my rights should not be contingent on certain technologies.
even worse, the way we use youtube makes it very hard to guarantee anonymity. even if your ip address and username are scrambled you might have uploaded a video of yourself with your personal data. viacom can demand access to exactly that kind of information, while they claim to be hunting illegal clips of the colbert report.
i don't see a good guy or a bad guy here. google might be the most ethical company in the world for all i know, but the fact is, they have become our library. we need to be careful going forward that our use of this incredible resource can not be used against us.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/15/18516498.php
July 15 report on agreement reached between Viacom and Google.
Thanks to the writer who commented and sent a link from the UK!
Glad to see that we have international readers.
Indybay Ed
July 15 report on agreement reached between Viacom and Google.
Thanks to the writer who commented and sent a link from the UK!
Glad to see that we have international readers.
Indybay Ed
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$140.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network