Comments:Judge orders YouTube to hand over video view records
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
wtf... so 'long privacy
Ridiculous
[edit]I heard that there is going to be or is a major lawsuit filed to stop this. I think really that YouTube should tell them to fuck themselves. YouTube is not responsible for the videos on the site, the users are. YouTube is just simply a place to put these things. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. And furthermore, YouTube is almost relentless at removing its copyrighted videos. Within minutes of receiving notice of something copyrighted (even if it is a false claim as with the Atheism videos a few months back), they take it down. This is nothing but ridiculous, and serves only to badly hurt the once great image of Viacom. - w:User:Ian Lee 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- On what grounds? Law enforcment is prevented from 'fishing' expeditions by the constitution, it wouldbe intresting to say the least, if the supremme court ruled the Viacom ruling to be a unconstitutional search. Also It may place Google in an impossible position, I.E If it handed over
EU data, it could very well face prosecurtion under privacy and dat protection laws in various EU member states (France in particular has very draconian privacy rules) 62.56.89.38 10:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
All Online Service Providers (including Wikimedia) should be concerned about this ruling. Whatever happened to the Safe Harbor Provisions provided in the DMCA? --Chiacomo (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikimedia regularly nukes even legitmate fair use, so it should be concerened but not as concerned
as service providers that have a 'chinese fan' attitude problem when it comes to the misuse of copyrighted works. You Tube could and probably have seen this coming, and taken a proactive rather than reactive approach, If anything YouTube should be the one sued by it's users for libaility exposure resulting out of You Tube's 'attitude'problem.62.56.89.38 10:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You Tube
[edit]I believe that if Viacom is worried about thier profits. Perhaps a boycott be started against all movies, cable and television along with the purchase of any products by Viacom will solve thier problems. Yes lets give those at Viacom something to worry about. Am I alone with this thought? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.26.231 (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC) oops. this thought is from just me Naperville Il. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.26.231 (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- No, you are not alone with this thought. 193.34.1.1 08:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Great....
[edit]The liberals were right our freedom is being taken away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.34.63 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Somebody call Austin Powers!
[edit]The bad guys want (puts pinkie to mouth) One BILLION dollars!
The judge should be taken out the back of the courthouse and be executed. This is a giant fishing expedition and Viacom should be boycotted for being scum. Admittedly, scum with lawyers, but scum nonetheless. As I understand it, there are provisions in law like the DMCA that allow them to get their stuff taken down - but greedy bastards that they are - they'd rather sell a sob-story to a judge in an attempt to profit from their own laziness. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Confused a little
[edit]How are they going to find enough time to search through millions of YouTube accounts? And if they find out that I've watched a copyrighted video, what are they going to do, sue me? This decision just seems really confusing. ~Planoneck~ 15:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ass-kicking called for
[edit]This requires a public ass-kicking. I spoke with a relative who is a lawyer, and he confirmed my suspicious: anyone anywhere in the world who has ever used YouTube can take this into court in their country, under their state's privacy laws. Places with decent privacy laws will be a tough fight, and I can't believe Viacom will even bother to appear in every last little state (there must be somebody with a computer in the Central African Republic who'd give this a shot...) So, if Google don't appeal, who votes the entire planet takes Viacom to court? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Legal point: Could a reasonable person consider that by obtaining viewing data, Viacom is in effect
as well persuing a legitmate disupte, obtaning privliged commerical information? 62.56.89.38 17:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Legal Point: Would scaring users away inadvertently or causing users to quit You Tube over privacy concerns, be unfair restraint of trade , given that it potnetialy means lower advertising revenu to Google? 62.56.89.38 17:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Legal Point: The US constitution has a clause about unfair searches, does this apply only to the Government, or does it apply to any entity constituted in law (as a corporation would be? 62.56.89.38 17:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
What right does Viacom have?
[edit]Can they really ask YouTube to turn over the records of people that have watched all videos, even including the ones they don't hold any sort of copyright for? (→Zachary) 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)