What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy’s holiday campaign.
108 Comments
- Skelly11, on 07/04/2008, -4/+198ok, they drove me to this.....***** VIACOM
- GeckoSlayer, on 07/04/2008, -1/+101I'm an Australian here, why is MY information being given out over a US dispute? International privacy laws should protect us shouldn't they? (I'm definitely no law expert!)
quote from article:
“We are disappointed the court granted Viacom’s overreaching demand for viewing history,” Catherine Lacavera, Google’s senior litigation counsel, said in a statement. “We are asking Viacom to respect users’ privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court’s order.”
Does this mean google have thrown in the towel? Are they not going to dispute this? - thesheqq, on 07/04/2008, -1/+51Google/Youtube needs to deliver the logs in print. There is nothing saying what form the logs need to be. A printout of the logs would be more pages than what is in the Library of Congress.
Better yet, print them off in shuffled relational tables and then mix them up and dump them with a dump truck in front of Viacom. - TaosSW, on 07/04/2008, -1/+50This goes far, far beyond protecting copyright. Privacy should be the main priority here, for both domestic and foreign users.
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -2/+38***** YOU VIACOM
- siobhankeogh, on 07/04/2008, -8/+41"Viacom has not asked for and will not be obtaining any personally identifiable information of any user."
"Viacom would not, for example, be able to chase down users who illegally posted clips from “The Colbert Report” on YouTube."
Google is still way > Viacom, but can we all stop freaking out about individual users facing lawsuits now? - GeckoSlayer, on 07/04/2008, -4/+36***** THE RIAA
- smurf22, on 07/04/2008, -1/+29Poor viacom instead of earning 100 billion they only earned 99.8 billion this year. :(
They need to learn how to ***** off. - ToxNub, on 07/04/2008, -1/+28Actually no. I know for a fact that many Canadian businesses are scared about partnerships with American companies because recent measures in the US (ie Patriot Act) means all our data is fair game.
- TimFrost, on 07/04/2008, -1/+25I don't care if they're not getting personally identifiable information, they're still out of order to get my IP address, what do they need it for? If they want to see if copyrighted material is more popular, youtube has a handy view counter on every single video page! So there's no need for any data to be disclosed. And with the number of security error's that have happened in the UK recently with data on every citizen being lost, what are the chances this data will be lost and someone gets a shed load of IP addresses that could easily be hacked if badly protected. They can release as many blogs saying it's not against individuals as possible, they're still out of order.
- solidus636, on 07/04/2008, -2/+22***** THE MPAA TOO!
- PAStheLoD, on 07/04/2008, -2/+22"Oh, we're very-very sorry that this has gotten so far. If Google had given us 3 zillion dollars, we wouldn't have to sue. But THEY didn't, so we're the poor-poor victims of this unfortunate constellation of events." Well, if this (or a less transparent phrasing of the same) doesn't get your hypocracy sensor to break, then what? :o
Strange, when a lofs of money's about to be given, the same ***** corporations are involved. How com VIACOM never offered anything for free, like Google? They have record revenues and profit every year, and they're still whining about their LOSSES.
Well, just stating the obvious. This level of greed just makes me hit these "topmanagers" somewhere with critical damage.. ah :C - twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -1/+20StarTrek Fans! Google Needs You!!
Help Google translate the data to Klingon before handing it over to Viacom! - LordSeth, on 07/04/2008, -5/+22***** Bush
- KMartSheriff, on 07/04/2008, -0/+17And make sure it's printed on paper that is made up of tiny blue and red stripes so it's blinding to read.
- MavRevMatt, on 07/04/2008, -0/+14Apparently not, which really sucks. Of course Google isn't the best when it comes to privacy...
- DontGiveADamn, on 07/04/2008, -4/+18Don't be mad at just Viacom, be mad at YouTube for keeping records of my IP address when I watch some videos.
- WilliamAdama, on 07/04/2008, -1/+15If I am an entrepreneur, someone please explain to me why I would ever want to start a business in USA?
- ephrils1, on 07/04/2008, -2/+15So... how do we boycott Viacom?
If they were so concerned about this, they'd paid their own employees and artists better. Which reminds me, ***** the RIAA. I know they have a hand in that somewhere too. - t2t2, on 07/04/2008, -1/+14Where are the botnets attacking when you need them?
- rajputwarrior, on 07/04/2008, -1/+13is viacom ***** retarded? They want personal info of people to be spread to all companies like them? Do they actually think people are going to lay down and take this? If this goes to court, or to congress, they must realize it'll get laughed at because of the inevitable (oh god america, please don't ***** up and vote for another war mongeror again) change of government. I think bush and buddies (i could be wrong) have bigger things to worry about right now. I am only going to presume that Obama and his government will never allow this.
Google must realize if they don't fight this that this will be the end of youtube, and sites like veoh are just going to take off (especially since they are hosted in a different country with less retarded copyright laws) - t2t2, on 07/04/2008, -1/+13Well really every video is copyrighted to someone (the creator of it), so most of it is copyrighted...
- ajv570, on 07/04/2008, -2/+13You can say ***** you don't have to put ****
- explnx, on 04/27/2009, -0/+11In Navajo.
- mikelieman, on 07/04/2008, -6/+16***** *ALL* the Loyal Bushies!
- AlienMushroom, on 07/04/2008, -0/+10VIACUM
- locojones, on 07/05/2008, -1/+11The discovery order clearly sets out the format of the discovery, and any attempts to circumvent that or to obstruct it can be met with severe sanctions in court, to the degree that YouTube would lose their case if they were difficult or refused to comply. The Federal Rule regarding electronic discovery is quite clear:
"(E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored information:
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;
(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms"
Google and YouTube store their viewer information in electronic databases stored on hard drives. The rule is clear that it must be produced as discovery in the exact same format.
If they refuse, or produce it in some other difficult manner, the sanctions under the discovery rules range from: (1) directing that the designated facts regarding copyright infringement be established in Viacom's favor; (2) prohibiting Google/YouTube from supporting or opposing Viacom's claims or from introducing any evidence covered by the discovery to mount their defense; (3) rendering a default judgment against Google/YouTube; (4) or even holding the disobedient party in contempt of court with all attendant sanctions until they comply with the order.
Making discovery difficult is a serious business, and the courts don't like people who play games. So while all of you think it's funny hah-hah to say "Hey why don't you print it out on encrypted punch cards," you need to grow up and learn the rules of the justice system. - MrCoke, on 07/05/2008, -0/+8everybody lies.
- a1cd, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7"Safe" experience?
- jmandawg, on 07/05/2008, -2/+9I will silently protest by not buying any viacom products... If they have any media i want, i will download it.
I recommend everyone else do the same. This is the only way we can make them feel the pain. - senae, on 07/05/2008, -2/+9Do you even know what an IP address is. That's like a company saying they won't take any personal information about you, but they will take your SSN/SIN/ 3 letter acronym that means the same thing in whatever country you're from.
- toastgodsupreme, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Some of you are brilliant.
I lol'ed, honestly.
Though it makes me wonder. When information is required to be submitted to the court by another party, does that information have to conform to a specific format and language? - SirDomino, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8They are just mad because the younger generation isn't watching TV. They probably want to use Google's Information for free Demographics Research so they can better tailor TV to appeal to younger people. Why pay millions to do the kind of research that Google already has for free?
- toxicityj, on 07/04/2008, -5/+12If Google doesn't keep fighting this, they're just as bad as VIACOM
- ThatDustyGuy, on 07/04/2008, -1/+8I bet you would go even more ape-***** if News Corp. was the one suing!
- krnldmp, on 07/04/2008, -0/+6Viacom can sniff a bag of pre-scented cheap Chinese molded black rubber bungs holes.
- BlaenkDenum, on 07/05/2008, -1/+7***** the M-P-double-A
***** the R-I-double-A
***** the suits behind the BSA
and ***** em ALL for the DMCA
A song by the Futuristic Sex Robotz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnLB8wysMbY - arunforce, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6Because most Americans live from paycheck to paycheck.
- scalded, on 07/05/2008, -0/+6Because Americans will buy anything, even if they can't really afford it.
- bonjourmr, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6I give it 10 years before the internet starts sucking really bad.
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6"shoot"
- twiztidsinz, on 07/04/2008, -1/+6I'm no lawyer, but from what I've seen.. an ounce of cooperation goes a long way to helping you look like the good guy.
Google already takes down video's that the copyright holder asks them to.
Google already has a system in place to limit 'offending' media from being reposted.
Now if Google shows they are further cooperating with the 'rights holders', it should show that they are saying "We have nothing to hide. We do everything we can to make sure we are within the law".
In addition to that, Google isn't the one posting the videos so to most, they aren't breaking the law. Throw a little bit of 'the clips help get people interested in the show, thus increasing the viewer base' and 'it's not much different than TiVo' and Viacom is looking more and more like the big bad guy. - LeeSoong, on 07/05/2008, -2/+7Viacom has no right to wire tap the internet, and take by force the private information of millions of people from nations all over the world.
NATO and the U.N. should plan a surgical, tactical military strike of the Viacom Headquarters, and haul its board of directors, managers, and lawyers off to the Hague
to be tried for a new international crime against humanity:
Being a Global Pain in the Ass to the general human population... - CaptainCool53, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5It's tuberculosis. Now give me my Vicodin.
- PopcornDave, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5I asked that question back in 1992 and never could get an answer then either. Short answer is: you don't.
- jfg84, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4A good boycott would be to stop watching the Daily Show and Colbert Report. That stinks but those are two guys that would stand up for themselves against Viacom when they see a boycott against their shows.
- SIRBERUS, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4IANAL, but I would have to say the moment you used a US service, you agreed to said services' ToS, which means you are bound by the laws they have to obey.
- nitroburn, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4This is such utter crap.
How can we expect every community with user generated content to have the magic ability to filter copyrighted content? Especially condidering there are many fair use aspects that allow them to use such copyrighted works? I mean, obviously someone uploading an episode of the Simpsons to YouTube is breaking the law, but someone who uses clips from the Simpsons, within the framework of fair use, shouldn't be punished just because they want some blanket ban of their content.
I respect creators rights, but they can't force all these companies to assume everyone is a criminal. - SimonTB, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Whoa now... That's just going too far.
- ShellShock11, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3I agree, and it may or may not be because of the catchy rhyme at the end...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialoggs, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is