View from a Farley The Current Events and Opinion Weblog of Chris Farley

Google, YouTube, Viacom, and Privacy

Google loves to play both sides of an argument. First, they claim it’s extremely difficult for them to filter out copyrighted material from YouTube, but at the same time they’ve been very strict and very effective at filtering out child pornography. Why can they do one and not the other? I’m sure Viacom would like to know. Google has also argued that they don’t need to protect their data, particularly IP addresses, more stringently because a user could generally not be identified through IP address. This is in addition to Google’s history of keeping more user data than God. But now that Viacom wants this data, YouTube (owned by Google) is saying the exact opposite – releasing IP addresses to Viacom’s legal team seems like the end of the world for Google.

Viacom is trying to get these records (which, to be clear, include the username, IP address, video data, and viewing statistics for every YouTube user) in connection with their March 2007 lawsuit Viacom International, Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment Television, LLC v. Youtube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, and Google Inc. Viacom is claiming massive copyright infringement has taken place on YouTube (I don’t think this is a point of contention, we’ve all seen this), but more importantly that the scale of this infringement combined with YouTube not proactively removing copyrighted content has hurt Viacom and even aided Google in the form of ad revenue. Viacom is also alleging inducement of copyright infringement, a relatively new claim in copyright cases and the result of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Et Al.v.Grokster LTD, Et Al.

I definitely do not have the legal expertise to analyze the case itself, but I’m quite interested by the data Google is being forced to turn over. I should note that the blogosphere has gone absolutely up-the-wall-best-to-put-some-people-in-an-insane-asylum crazy over this latest decision in the ongoing battle between Google and Viacom. TechCrunch suggested that Google toy with Viacom by sending the records over in paper format. (The records total 12 terabytes and, in paper format, would probably fill the Googleplex). My lawyer relations tell me type of game has been played by litigators in the past, so the courts are now very specific about how data is turned over. Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require all parties to agree to the format of the data, and failing agreement, the judge decides.

So, it seems, Google will have to turn over the data. The EFF is already going crazy, but I’m not sure the privacy implications are as dire as some believe. Google and Viacom, according to The New York Times, are working on ways of protecting user privacy, though no deal has been formalized and Viacom is under no obligation to agree to any such deal. Google wants to anonymize the data by redacting IP addresses and user names. But an EFF representative says even that’s not enough because when AOL release anonymized user data for research in 2006, The New York Times was able to track down one AOL user by analyzing her search queries only.

As far as I’m concerned, this is a moot point because the data, anonymized or not, will never be made public. Viacom certainly does not want the data to get out because it makes them look terrible and if anyone leaked it, their job and the next several years of their life would hang in the balance. Google definitely doesn’t want this data to get out. The only people that will see this are paralegals, assistants, and a handful of lawyers. I’m certain some people are concerned that the data will be used to target them individually, for illegal acts like copyright infringement, totally unrelated to Viacom’s cause of action against YouTube. Good news for them because the court’s protection order will not allow them to use the data for anything other than their initial claim. It’s just not that big of a deal.

I also find it somewhat hypocritical that anti-copyright activists want to make it hard for copyright holders to get data without a lawsuit, but when the copyright holder pursues legal means of obtaining the data, they also go crazy. I think a lawsuit should be a requirement for someone to obtain user data, but when the data is ordered, it should be delivered.

I’m worried about the precedent that this case sets, but in this particular instance I, as a YouTube user, am satisfied with the safeguards in place to prevent my privacy being violated. But if those safeguards are ever lessened in the future, then that’s a big problem. I’ll be following this case closely, like all copyright cases, because it could tie up some loose ends left by other cases.