Corporate Case Ruling Cancels Confidential Information
Good new for Google: during a court settlement with Viacom in a New York federal court earlier this month, Google doesn’t have to turn over their source code, the code for identifying repeat copyright infringement uploads, copies of all videos marked private, and Google’s advertising database schema. Bad news for everyone else in America who has ever been to YouTube: due to the judge’s ruling, Google has to turn over the I.P. addresses and user names of people who viewed copyrighted videos and the databases concerning those copyrighted videos and how many times they were viewed. The judge deemed the privacy concerns as “speculative.” Why is this an issue worth mentioning? There are several different reasons.
Firstly, the district judge overseeing the case overlooked the Video Privacy Protection Act. This federal law “prohibits video tape service providers from disclosing information on the specific video materials subscribers request or obtain,” and exists because the personal information of a Supreme Court Justice was obtained. Perhaps the wording confused the judge, but elsewhere in the act, it states “prerecorded video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” This is important because the word SIMILAR doesn’t give protection to any specific technology. So, we have a U.S. Judge ignoring federal law.
Second of all, Viacom now has possession of enough information to potentially target individuals for further law suits. Your I.P. address alone wouldn’t necessarily give someone enough information, but with your user name, it could be connected to you if it were specific enough. However, because of the previously mentioned VPPA, even if Viacom can gather identifiable individuals, they will be protected by the act.
Google, in all important respects, came off quite light. The individuals, we are the ones who are targeted for doing something as simple as watching a single video, once. What bothers me in particular is that as intangible as digital media is, streaming video is one step more removed. The audio and video quality is sub par, it can’t be downloaded for personal storage (for the most part), and isn’t designed for multiple playback. The fact of the matter is that companies simply do not know how to function on the internet. They are upset that their products aren’t making them money, that people are enjoying them, sharing them and discovering them but aren’t watching or clicking Viacom’s ads.
In an ironic turn of events, you could sue Viacom.
