Comments on: Court Orders Google to Hand Over Your YouTube Personal Data

By: Big Brother or Google? | Gevil.org

Big Brother or Google? | Gevil.org — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:00:00 +0000

[...] recent news that Google was ordered to hand over personal YouTube data by the federal court for the Southern District of New York was quite disturbing. While the viewing [...]

By: MB Web Design

MB Web Design — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 01:45:51 +0000

This sets a *very* dangerous precedent and is a gross invasion of privacy.

By: PS3

PS3 — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:52:41 +0000

I can quite believe it, judges are a law unto themselves.

By: Beginner Yoga Exercises

Beginner Yoga Exercises — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:43:09 +0000

I can’t believe that a judge would force Google to give up their users information. Just what is Viacom up to. Most likely nothing good for the You Tube viewers. What about those people that aren’t viewing copywritten content. How is it fair for their information to be compromised.

By: Goran Web Design

Goran Web Design — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:58:21 +0000

This is ridiculous, its our privacy. This will change the face of video on the Internet.

By: Mr Marketing

Mr Marketing — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 12:37:26 +0000

Apparently a few regular Youtube publishers are now getting together for a possible legal action. I doubt they will have much of a chance on their own. Mr Marketing's last blog post..Negative PR is still PR.

By: Erik

Erik — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:46:27 +0000

Mike... I agree with you and Andy, they need to keep it confidential. I can agree with Google using it to make my viewing experience better, or at least ask me if I want them to use it to keep my viewing experience better. But aside from telling other people how many times a video has been viewed, I don't think others should be allowed to have this information. Copyright or not. Erik's last blog post..Wanna Buy Some Blogs?

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:09:17 +0000

@andy I'm with you on the company having access to our data... I just wish I knew for sure that data would be totally confidential. I don't see that happening. Somebody, somewhere, will get permission from someone, somewhere, to have that data turned over to them. It really is "Big Brother". Mike's last blog post..$60

By: Erik

Erik — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 18:57:19 +0000

This is absolutely ridiculous. If Arrington is right, why would Viacom waste money with all those court orders on people who watched the videos. There's no way they could take all those people to court, so it's obviously just to bully people out of watching it, and bully google to get stricter. Why can't big companies just embrace technology. Just because they can't find a way to utilize it doesn't mean they should pull this goofy stuff. Erik's last blog post..Wanna Buy Some Blogs?

By: » New Media News: Court Orders Google To Give Viacom Your Private Data NewsAndMediaBlog.com

Sun, 06 Jul 2008 14:09:50 +0000

[...] Viacom is at it again. And this time they have the court’s backing. Google has been ordered to hand over YouTube users’ private data. TechCrunch says Viacom wants to use the information to find ordinary Joe’s to sue. I don’t think so. [...]

By: Mr Marketing

Mr Marketing — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:23:39 +0000

The rumour has it, they will try to get a few individuals watching copyrighted content which I think is a load of rubbish because you can't expect Youtube users to go and check every video they watch for copyright. Its up to Google to do this. Mr Marketing's last blog post..The website is down!

By: elmo033057

elmo033057 — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 04:57:15 +0000

Happy 4th to you as well. I really liked Google's logo and image for the 4th of July. I have noticed that Google is starting some very complex tactics in its ranking system. Yahoo better follow quickly because it will be left behind in the dust. God Bless! ELMO elmo033057's last blog post..What Business Am I Really In?

By: Ashley

Ashley — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:27:57 +0000

It is really sad. Actually bad news are always sad

By: Warenwirtschaft

Warenwirtschaft — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:56:27 +0000

This is just another case of judges not understanding new technologies. They often judge with mechanisms in their mind that just dont work on the internet. There are many similar cases of stupid decisions here in Europe.

By: PS3

PS3 — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:19:16 +0000

Is it really that simple Linda? People talk of fair or personal usage but I find it hard to keep track of what you can and can’t do.

“I say this with the utmost respect, but Judge Stanton is a moron” – classic !

By: Carolina Panthers Blog

Carolina Panthers Blog — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:07:13 +0000

This is getting out of control. Can't we all just feel safe when we want to watch a video on youtube? Is that to hard to ask? Carolina Panthers Blog's last blog post..Position Analysis: Center

By: Nicole Price

Nicole Price — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:53:04 +0000

I will be surprised if there is no appeal and a stay on execution. I suspect that the full implication of the judgment was not understood by the judge. Nicole Price's last blog post..Fitness Equipment: Some Good Deals

By: Linda Bustos

Linda Bustos — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:42:01 +0000

Go ahead and sue the 14 year olds watching clips of South Park, mmmkay? No, really. How can you sue someone for watching content that they may not be aware violates copyright? If you search for "penguin falls through ice" and find a March of the Penguins clip illegally uploaded and *gasp* watch it - that's not the crime. The crime is uploading it, if that's what the law is. Linda Bustos's last blog post..Why eCommerce is a Lot Like ICanHasCheezburger

By: Top Rated

Top Rated — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:49:14 +0000

While the Judge may be a schmuck, Google isn't. Or at least their lawyers aren't. I find it hard to believe they will willingly give up this information. They understand the online implications, even if the legal system doesn't. Top Rated's last blog post..The Top 10 Digital Cameras Ripped Apart

By: Brick Marketing

Brick Marketing — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:15:54 +0000

Wow. This is pretty crazy. We agree that the information given is good for advertising purposes but certainly not for this. Hopefully this does not happen.