lol
there are more important things that need sorting other than who has broken which copyright law
Court forces Google to hand over ALL YouTube viewers' logs
- Thread starter Rainmaker
- Start date
lol
there are more important things that need sorting other than who has broken which copyright law
Think that's bad? have a read of this: H.R. 4279
This bill has passed the House of Representatives and is heading to Congress with a huge amount of support - it's not a matter of if but when.
The PRO-IP bill (or H.R. 4279 as it's officially called), significantly increases the U.S. state's power to detect and prosecute IP infringement, carrying with it a whole host of new law enforcement capabilities. It establishes an IP Czar, someone with the job of overseeing zealous action on behalf of copyright and trademark owners, and includes such powers as the ability to seize equipment if it contains just one file "thought" to infringe.
Importing and exporting infringing material will attract harsh penalties, and there's a $30,000 per-track fine on music (so that's half a million dollars for an album), The list goes on, I recommend you go out and Google to educate yourself on the many quite overwhelming powers the US government wants to give itself in its apparent determination to put file sharing on a par with drug dealing, gangsterism and other great crimes against society.
Think not living in America means it doesn't affect you?
Think again.
Among the many provisions is the establishment of "five additional Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinators in foreign countries to protect the intellectual property rights of U.S. citizens [...] increase DOJ training and assistance to foreign governments to combat counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property." -- and if you think their job is just to lead the rest of the world in the way of American righteousness, think again.
Transferring a file between the US and the UK, however you do it, will most certainly count as importing or exporting: that will include BitTorrent, web hosting, FTP, Usenet et al. Even if you're scrupulous in avoiding the obviously illegal, I doubt very much you know how much of the stuff you've browsed today was hosted in the US, let alone how legal or illegal it strictly was. If you use any of the torrent or limewire feeds, good luck.
As a UK citizen, you no longer have any effective defence against a US demand for deportation. Under the Extradition Act 2003 the US can apply for a UK citizen to be extradited without having to present any evidence to face charges of a crime committed in the US – for which the UK citizen need not have been actually present.
These are worrying times.
This bill has passed the House of Representatives and is heading to Congress with a huge amount of support - it's not a matter of if but when.
The PRO-IP bill (or H.R. 4279 as it's officially called), significantly increases the U.S. state's power to detect and prosecute IP infringement, carrying with it a whole host of new law enforcement capabilities. It establishes an IP Czar, someone with the job of overseeing zealous action on behalf of copyright and trademark owners, and includes such powers as the ability to seize equipment if it contains just one file "thought" to infringe.
Importing and exporting infringing material will attract harsh penalties, and there's a $30,000 per-track fine on music (so that's half a million dollars for an album), The list goes on, I recommend you go out and Google to educate yourself on the many quite overwhelming powers the US government wants to give itself in its apparent determination to put file sharing on a par with drug dealing, gangsterism and other great crimes against society.
Think not living in America means it doesn't affect you?
Think again.
Among the many provisions is the establishment of "five additional Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinators in foreign countries to protect the intellectual property rights of U.S. citizens [...] increase DOJ training and assistance to foreign governments to combat counterfeiting and piracy of intellectual property." -- and if you think their job is just to lead the rest of the world in the way of American righteousness, think again.
Transferring a file between the US and the UK, however you do it, will most certainly count as importing or exporting: that will include BitTorrent, web hosting, FTP, Usenet et al. Even if you're scrupulous in avoiding the obviously illegal, I doubt very much you know how much of the stuff you've browsed today was hosted in the US, let alone how legal or illegal it strictly was. If you use any of the torrent or limewire feeds, good luck.
As a UK citizen, you no longer have any effective defence against a US demand for deportation. Under the Extradition Act 2003 the US can apply for a UK citizen to be extradited without having to present any evidence to face charges of a crime committed in the US – for which the UK citizen need not have been actually present.
These are worrying times.
Why do google have months of logs exactly? It's their fault that this has happened, they allow tons of copyrighted material to be broadcast on their website without taking any action against it... They are equally to blame for their users privacy being violated, it was only a matter of time.
Last edited:
The purpose of this isn't actually to catch users - its part of their case against youtube. They want the data so that they can prove that youtube got successful and made money off of the back of unauthorised reproduction. The data'll be mined to work out what percentage of everything viewed was unauthorised.
Even taking this in to account I'd agree with everyone that the courts have given them far more than they should have. The only thing that makes me happy is to look at the list of the things they've been refused access to. Viacom even asked for the source-code of youtube and google's search functionality - Google's search engine code!
@Engergize - they do take action against it - far more than they have to under US law. They have software that automatically checks each upload against a library of copyrighted material to try to work out if its unauthorised reproduction. If the program thinks that it is the file is then tagged and then subsequently checked by a human operator. In addition not only do they comply with DMCA take-down notices, but they actually ban any users who've had a DMCA take-down made against them.
Even taking this in to account I'd agree with everyone that the courts have given them far more than they should have. The only thing that makes me happy is to look at the list of the things they've been refused access to. Viacom even asked for the source-code of youtube and google's search functionality - Google's search engine code!
@Engergize - they do take action against it - far more than they have to under US law. They have software that automatically checks each upload against a library of copyrighted material to try to work out if its unauthorised reproduction. If the program thinks that it is the file is then tagged and then subsequently checked by a human operator. In addition not only do they comply with DMCA take-down notices, but they actually ban any users who've had a DMCA take-down made against them.
Last edited:
Air-crash investigation tv programmes stolen from nat geo, have been up there for over a year!
If google didn't have logs stretching as far back as god knows when, then it would only be a small issue, but their log collecting makes the privacy violation far worse than it would needed to have been. And googles attitude concerning the mass of videos showing people being attacked in the street by chavs and filmed is disgraceful.
Last edited:
I'm sure the logs are gold-dust to Google as it chucks everything in to helping its algorithm work out the best possible SERPs.
I'm not saying that youtube's software is perfect at picking out content, but its supposed to be relatively good. Certainly the judge in the case must have thought it was good. Viacom asked for the sourcecode to this program so they could prove it could be greatly improved - the judge refused to give it to them on the basis that was speculative at best.
I'm not saying that youtube's software is perfect at picking out content, but its supposed to be relatively good. Certainly the judge in the case must have thought it was good. Viacom asked for the sourcecode to this program so they could prove it could be greatly improved - the judge refused to give it to them on the basis that was speculative at best.
Well put it this way, you know what usenet server they are connecting to. Because obviously NNTP protocol uses the normal 3 way TCP handshake else your destination wouldn't know where to send the response packets to. Now im no expert on usenet but I could guess at the server side you can see which newsgroups a certain IP requests. Sure you can't sniff the data on the wire (cos its encrypted) but if the ISP (Radius server) and the usenet server admins colluded then it would be possible to track your behavior.
Last edited:
And when the EU approaches them regarding the matter (and they will), the Yanks' response will be about 1 of 2 things. Either Profiling or their 'Fight against Terrorism'.
Idiots!!!
The sooner they all blow each other up, the better.
Idiots!!!
The sooner they all blow each other up, the better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 May 2004
- Posts
- 3,270
DPA only applies within the EU AFAIK
From what I've heard they only want the logs to see how many times their copyrighted material has been watched, probably so they can calculate the amount of damages they can hit Google/Youtube with!
At the end of the day Youtube isn't a small/underground/alternative company any more, it's owned by a very large corporation that has a dominant position in it's marke, with that position comes responsibility.
At the end of the day Youtube isn't a small/underground/alternative company any more, it's owned by a very large corporation that has a dominant position in it's marke, with that position comes responsibility.
Last edited:
On honestly, we heard all this DRM rubbish when Vista was in the pipe, to be honest I don't think that Youtube holding copyrighted material on their site is on. They have the technology to find such material and remove it but they choose not to.
Well remember that some of the copyright material may be authorised and others may be subject to fair use depending on how its being used. Currently if anyone wants something to be removed that youtube hasn't noticed all they have to do is send a single sided sheet to youtube with the details - it's not exactly hard for copyright owners to get their stuff removed.
Nope sorry, sure that's Youtube/Google defence but that doesn't cut it IMHO, there are 100,000's of copyrighted videos on Youtube, they provide the service so they should check that it "is" allowed not the other way around!
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 907
Would deleting accounts be a good measure? Heard a lot of people are now intrested in doing exactly that as some sort of defence but question is would that actually work?
That's not how the law works in the UK and until this case that's not how anyone thought the law worked in the US either.
@Will Lucky - no that wouldn't work at all. In any case individuals don't have to worry. There's still a chance the IP's will be removed completely from the dataset and even if they're not they still need to get your ISP to give over your details.