• Welcome to Drummer Cafe Community Forum.

Google Ordered to Hand Over All YouTube User Data

Started by Bart Elliott, July 03, 2008, 04:38 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bart Elliott

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday, July 1st, that YouTube, the online video-sharing web site owned by Google, has to turn over all its user logs to Viacom, the mega-corporation that owns MTV, Paramount Pictures, Comedy Central and VH1, among others.

Read more here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376003,00.html]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,376003,00.html

If you never heard about the lawsuit, some two years old now, here's a clip from YouTube of all places, explaining the original lawsuit.


Chris Whitten

I think the lawsuit is fair.
For example it's shocking to see whole sections of a drum instructional DVD placed on YouTube for viewers to see for free.
On the other hand, it's been useful for me to get a sample of the drum DVD's that are out there (I can't use Drummerworld with my net speed  :().
For me the most amazing thing about YouTube is the obscure film footage that's been posted.
I've found lots of amazing footage from jazz festivals and old 60's music documentaries.
For example, I watched 20 minutes of Soft Machine in Olympic Studios in 1970.
It was interesting to me because I'm interested in 70's studio techniques and I've met some of the guys in Soft machine. However, the film overall was dull.
In other words, I wouldn't buy it, but I very much appreciated being able to watch something I never knew existed.
So, I wouldn't mind if there was a small subscription fee and YouTube could do a deal with the copyright owners.
However, in cases where copyright owners have been given more power (iTunes and regular DVD's), they can't resist the urge to edit. Which means that half the music I want to listen to isn't available on iTunes, nor are the TV shows, and I'm still waiting for several classic cult films to come out on DVD.
Some of the things I want are available to Americans of course ::) but they are restricted from those who live outside the US.
YouTube is not.

Danno

"Ever check out YouTube? Have a user name and password for it? Then Viacom's going to find out all about what you like to watch." (Fox News)

I wonder if my having watched "Beer Cannon" eight million times will skew their statistics.

Big Yummy

Come on.  This is a Homeland Security issue.  Bend over and take it like a man.

Seriously, though, it's too late to put the genie back in the bottle.  Technology like that used by YouTube is here to stay.  Company's like ViaCom need to adapt or die.  The longer they fight the technology, the more likely they are to be killed by it.

When people wanted to broadcast baseball games on the radio, there was a lot of resistance to that.  Why would anyone pay to attend a baseball game when they could here it for free on the radio?

Bart Elliott

I think the lawsuit is justifiable.

In general I don't think people will like it, especially those who don't own copyrighted materials themselves and thus don't run the risk of revenue loss.

I've worked very hard to try and protect my video lessons and footage here at the Drummer Cafe. I wish I could spend more time creating rather than protecting my works, but that's the world we live in. Hopefully these lawsuits will force large video oriented sites (i.e. YouTube) to monitor and enforce copyright law.

I agree with Chris, seeing people upload almost the entire video from a DVD, like an instructional drum video, is sickening.

People don't realize that sites like the Drummer Cafe has to get permission to use video clips. Copyright law makes provision for "fair use" as well as segments used for educational purposes, or for that sale of the item ... but that's it.

I think fines are in order, and will help reduce the offenders. But just like getting a speeding ticket, those that knowingly/willfully/purposefully break the law will just keep on doing it regardless of the small fines. In their minds, they are above the law or the law doesn't apply to them. It's narcissism at it's best ... and a path that I'm sorry to say many Americans  are traveling on.

Big Yummy

What does the phrase "turn over all its user logs to Viacom" mean?  Is Viacom now getting personal information about anyone who has ever registered with YouTube?

Some sort of settlement is inevitable.  It's the same deal with the music industry.  The file sharing sites popped up and rather than strike a reasonable deal, the music industry tried to stick the genie back in the bottle.  After they wasted a lot of time, money and good will losing that battle, they finally started working on some reasonable solutions.

Personally, though, I suspect film may be remembered as a great art form that lasted for a century and then died off.  Eventually it will be impossible to create such monumentally expensive works and make any money.  Major film will die, and that's sad, but new forms will replace it - and they probably won't be copyrighted.

Besides, Viacom are worse crooks than anyone pirating from them, as were the major record labels, so my heart isn't exactly bleeding for them.

Chris Whitten

In don't think 'film will die'.
Baseball hasn't died, although I think the sports administrators were right, crowds have dropped for many sports that are routinely aired on TV.
The possibility of earning a living in the music industry has been made more difficult by file sharing technology. It's correct to say it's a reality though, so adapt or die.
But I agree with Bart, many young YouTubers just don't concern themselves with the implications of uploading copyright material.
Once drum instructional DVD's become unprofitable due to pirating, drummers will stop making them.
Then we all lose out.

Anthony Manning-Franklin

Again, adapt or die.

I'm sure they can find ways to make it worthwhile to continue purchasing DVD's. Online technology is only going to improve. Perhaps companies could start uploading their DVD's onto youtube, then they take profits from page views/adclicks/etc. With a percentage going to youtube.

Nick

I noticed in the latest PRS magazine, that PRS have signed a deal with You Tube, so that we (it's members) will get royalties for material that is played, this is at least a step in the right direction... 

It still makes me want to puke when I hear musicians advocating illegal file sharing, or saying that it's 'ok for them to do it because other people do it and it's here to stay...' You could say the same about pedophilia... whether other people do it or not, it's still wrong man... And I keep hearing form A & R men that want to sign bands & would have done in the past but just can't afford because of this, I do sincerely hope the bands not getting signed are the ones containing musicians that advocating illegal file sharing...

I routinely see bands spending £10,000 of their own money on an album, (sometimes taking personal loans out to do it) and some 'Halfwit' calling themselves a 'fan' uploads the thing to a torrent site (and some of these cretins actually think they are doing the band a favor...) and the band doesn't even break even and usually breaks up under the financial strain, and they have to get normal jobs to pay the loans back...

It could just be me, but I don't remember many people that actually make a living from their music sales promoting illegal music sharing...

I saw the Marcus Brigstocke 'Planet Corduroy' DVD on you tube the other day, the entire thing is posted, I did watch it, and now I have a brand new 'Legal' copy of the DVD sitting on my desk, I bought it because I like the artist and I want him to make more DVD's... he isn't going to be able to do that if everyone steals it... At the end of the day it comes down to conscience, if you can steal from people that you like and respect then I feel, very, very sorry for you...

N

Big Yummy

Quote from: Nick on July 08, 2008, 01:14 PMYou could say the same about pedophilia...

Equating file sharing with pedophilia?  How would you characterize the record industry's gouging of customers and scamming of bands?  Genocide?

QuoteIt could just be me, but I don't remember many people that actually make a living from their music sales promoting illegal music sharing...

The Bare Naked Ladies released an album on flash drives.  They're not exactly starving.

Neil Young made a good suggestion that was ignored - release albums on DVD and offer a much higher quality of recording so people who pay the cash get a markedly better product.

Most of the rhetoric I hear against file sharing is coming from record companies, not recording musicians (Lars Ulrich excepted, of course).  Most musicians don't view fans as the enemy.

When I sit down in a theatre to watch a movie and a Viacom employee stands in front of the screen and videotapes the audience, where's my royalties?  Their argument is that because I'm in their theatre, they can do whatever they want.  Fine, I won't go to the theatre.  So I buy a DVD and then I have to sit through stern anti-theft warnings - I can't fast forward or skip to the next scene, I have to sit and be lectured before every movie.  I paid, but I'm being treated like a criminal. 

If someone more movtivated than me downloads the same movie for free, guess what?  No creep video taping them, no angry letters on the screen, they get to watch the movie without some jerk ruining their mood before it starts.

I really should look into this ftp stuff.

Chris Whitten

Quote from: TMe on July 09, 2008, 09:40 PM

Most of the rhetoric I hear against file sharing is coming from record companies, not recording musicians (Lars Ulrich excepted, of course).


Not strictly true.
Two working musicians have commented negatively already in this thread.
actually, the opposite is true IMO.
The majority of the positive comments I've seen on the web have been made by people who don't earn a living with music, and never expect to.

It's a real debate though. The for and against part of which is getting old.
We're all going to have to deal with it, so let's all find a solution where musicians don't have to give up their work for free. The lennon quote is totally bogus by the way for many reasons.
And let's have a constructive debate about an artistic subject without bringing the horror of crimes against humanity into it (you know what I mean!).
Thanks.


Big Yummy

Sorry, I edited my comment. 

Chris Whitten is referring to my asking "Wasn't it John Lennon who asked "How can someone own a song?" and suggesting that if file sharers are to be equated with pedophiles we'd have to address record executives as "Herr Hitler".  (Both being instances of of excessive hyperbole.)

Chris Whitten

I'm afraid I don't think Neil Young has the solution either.
Most music is sold on lower level formats right now (internet streaming, mp3's etc).
Given that, I don't think super hi-fi quality is going to sell more music.

But this should probably go back to the topic of YouTube.
;)

Nick

Quote from: Chris Whitten on July 09, 2008, 10:29 PMBut this should probably go back to the topic of YouTube.
;)

I think your right; this could get way out of hand, let's kill it here

Big Yummy

It's difficult to sympathise with Viacom, but they do have a case.  YouTube could do a much better job of monitoring their site. 

It seems they're pretty good at blocking or removing inappropriate content (such as clips that are clearly pornographic), so the monitoring mechanism is in place.  There's no reason they couldn't do a better job of blocking or removing content that clearly goes beyond "fair use" of copyrighted material.

But, like I say, it's difficult to sympathise with a virtual monopoly like Viacom.  Also, it seems copyright law needs to change in order to adapt to a changing world.  We can't stop time with lawsuits and court orders.

QuoteWe're all going to have to deal with it, so let's all find a solution where musicians don't have to give up their work for free.

That's it, exactly.  The music industry is ahead of the film industry on this issue, and business models are already changing.  Viacom might be a lot better off in the long run if they embraced the technology instead of fighting it.

Think about it.  Why isn't Viacom running YouTube?  That would have been a smart purchase.

The genie is out of the bottle, and it's not going back in.

Bart Elliott

With cases like this, it's difficult to remember that truth is truth, wrongdoing is wrongdoing.

It doesn't matter who delivers the message of truth or points out wrongdoings. Just because the messenger is perhaps guilty (or not) of some other issue doesn't mean what they are bringing to light is some how lessened because of their own shortcomings or missing the mark if you will.

For us to write off what Viacom is bringing to light is like telling a doctor that he can't diagnose someone with cancer because the doctor himself has been or is sick as well. "You can't tell me I have cancer because you have cancer ... even if I really do have cancer!" That's just silly.

Whether it be wrong or right motives ... all I want, and all that anyone should really want, is for the truth (facts) to come forward and justice (the right solution and/or punishment) be done.

It takes money to fight these corporations. Who here on this forum has more money and resources to fight YouTube/Googe? I certainly don't! So in this case, let's be David and watch Goliath fight Goliath.

Chris Whitten

I don't think Viacom has anything to do with the BBC or the many drum DVD's that have been copied across to YouTube.
People said Metallica were too rich to sue the music pirates, but I don't have that kind of money or legal team. So what's happened? The former pirates have been forced to pay (at least a little) for their music sales, and sites like iTunes have appeared.



Big Yummy

Quote from: Bart Elliott on July 10, 2008, 09:15 AM
It takes money to fight these corporations. Who here on this forum has more money and resources to fight YouTube/Googe? I certainly don't! So in this case, let's be David and watch Goliath fight Goliath.

Just curious, have you asked YouTube to take down any content?  If so, have you had any cooperation?

Do you think it might have made more sense if, instead of trying to shut down new tech companies like Napster, the publishing industry had concentrated on working out an arrangement where some reasonable form of royalties would be paid?

In the earliest days of this debate, the publishing industry was trying to go after public libraries, so I've been prejudiced against them since before the internet was in common usage.  (It seems so long ago, but for most of us it's been less than 20.)

Bart Elliott

Quote from: TMe on July 11, 2008, 09:44 AM
Just curious, have you asked YouTube to take down any content?  If so, have you had any cooperation?

Thus far I haven't had any of MY content appear on YouTube, whether it be from my custom one-on-one video lessons or footage here at the Drummer Cafe. I protect what little I have, so for me personally, it hasn't been an issue.

I have TRIED to report content that is a breach of copyright law, but YouTube (in the past) has made it impossible to report anything unless you are the copyright owner. I've tried to help colleagues by reporting when their content is posted without their permission, but YouTube doesn't recognize the report unless I am the actual copyright holder. That makes no sense to me really. It would be like the police department only accepting burglary reports if it's your house. If you see someone breaking in someone else's home ... forget it.

I don't have the time, nor do most individuals who own copyrighted materials, to go around and find every illegal upload ... let alone try to make people adhere to copyright law. YouTube knows the law. If they are going to operate a business which provides a service that can (does) promote illegal activity, it is THEIR responsibility to make sure people don't upload copyrighted videos. As troublesome as that may be for YouTube ... too bad. They chose to offer the service; they are the ones that have to make sure they are in compliance. It's no different that selling alcohol; the establishment is responsible (not the police, not the manufactures) for making sure they don't sell booze to minors.

I don't think it would be that hard for a company like Google/YouTube, who is providing this enormous service to the general public, to have more stringent policies. How about having to give just a little bit more information than just a name and email address. Make setting up an account more intensive. If you want to upload material, you have to provide information that would be able to verify you are who you say you are ... and know exactly where to find you when you upload copyrighted materials. If they used the same type of procedures that banks use, I would think that a large portion of the problems would cease. Don't like the procedures, fine ... get your own server and upload to your heart's content ... and they'll still find you!

Big Yummy

Quote from: Bart Elliott on July 11, 2008, 10:14 AM
I have TRIED to report content that is a breach of copyright law, but YouTube (in the past) has made it impossible to report anything unless you are the copyright owner.

That actually makes sense, in a way.  YouTube has no way of knowing if the copyright holder minds having the content posted.  They'd need a complaint from the copyright holder or a recognized representative.

QuoteI don't have the time, nor do most individuals who own copyrighted materials, to go around and find every illegal upload...

A few years ago I was speaking with someone from SOCAN, an agency that collects royalties for musicians in Canada.  She was saying that ideally SOCAN would monitor internet activity and collect royalties but the record companies wouldn't cooperate with that idea.  The publishers were more interested in shutting down the file sharing sites than finding a way to make money from them.  The ftp sites were refusing to cooperate until a reasonable deal could be hammered out.

And, of course, some of the ftp people are just plain criminals.

Despite my blather, I've never actually downloaded an illegal music file.  The ftp process would require me to post material that other people want to download, and then we trade.  Somehow, I can easily see myself downloading free tunes, but uploading them?  That clearly crosses the line for me.  Burning a copy for a friend is one thing, but posting it online for anyone to grab and redistribute?  That's a bit too much for me.