(N.B. If you are new to the topic check the previous post on this blog for background info).

The Mashable article is very condemning of Viacom in making their requests for logging history, and also critical of the US judge who ruled in their favour on the action, mainly out of anger that Youtube users might now be at risk from facing potential (and probably successful) copyright violation lawsuits from Viacom.

To draw a parallel with another similar high profile case - it is as if Metallica (the famous heavy metal band), who sued Napster over enabling illegal filesharing of their music a few years back, had instead sued Napster for user download histories - with the intention of then researching the details further, hoping to bring direct legal action against the individual users involved.

In essence this is what it seems likely Viacom is doing (and exactly what Mashable alleges is happening).

Now no question this is massively unfair on users who had no idea they were viewing copyrighted material on Youtube, and who might potentially find themselves the subjects of swift legal action from Viacom for doing so. Obviously this will generate massive negative PR for Viacom - and rightly so, but they do not seem to mind too much right now.

However the point that I made in my earlier post remains valid; a massive copyright infringement has occurred which ever way you turn it, and Viacom have suffered as a result of it. They are in the business of making money from their shows, and under current laws they have suffered a loss of earnings through online theft of content.

The only question is; who is the thief that should pay? Is it Youtube (i.e. Google), who facilitated the unknowing theft? Or the users who willingly, though unwittingly benefited from the breach?

Viacom did try to make both pay - but their requests for some of Google's source code was rejected (a protection of trade secrets), while the logging database request was approved. Basically the former (Google) survived the legal ruling and will suffer only indirectly by virtue of the negative press involved, while the latter (individual users) could possibly face a far greater headache if Viacom pursues legal action.

Draconian as it may seem (and a poor PR exercise) Viacom has a perfectly legal and understandable grievance. It is Google that left users vulnerable to this by not removing such content despite multiple warnings, and thereby betrayed trust on a massive scale.

In essence they stood by and watched as their users committed one copyright breach after another, without warning anyone, and all the while logging the details of every such instance.

Luckily for them their trade secrets have been protected - while ordinary users will have to pay Viacom for the mistake. What must be remembered however - and that which Mashable seems to lose sight of in the author's (justified) anger - is that it is Youtube and Google that owe users an apology - and not Viacom.

Dejan Levi

The log files contain details of all userIDs and IP addresses for every single video view on record to date, which understandably Google is not keen to share with Viacom...

Google has consequently cited users' privacy as a primary concern for not wanting to hand over the details, accusing Viacom of making an 'over-reaching demand for viewing history'. Their statements are making Viacom appear to be some kind of unreasonable and intrusive ogre, ruthlessly harnessing the legal system on a technicality to order Google to hand over excessive quantities of user data.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital civil liberties campaign group, has also backed Google and requested that Viacom back off from their requests.

However the truth really is that Youtube notoriously ignored many warnings about copyright infringement and the potential trouble it could cause (though the problem is admittedly a very difficult one to tackle fully) and is now perhaps inevitably being made accountable for this. Some would say it was merely a matter of time before such a case arose and Viacom's demands are perfectly reasonable in such a situation.

Indeed it could be argued that it is Youtube that is solely at fault (as the court ruling has decreed) - and Youtube that is guilty of betraying users' trust - even though Google currently seem very keen to make the opposite seem the case.

In ignoring the copyright warnings, Youtube itself created the possibiliy of such a situation as this arising - and did not consider that in such a case user data would become highly vulnerable. In essence they have brought about the situation where user data can rightfully be claimed by someone else - and are now asserting that to hand user data over is disrespectful of privacy etc.

One cannot help but feel that if Youtube was really as concerned about privacy to the degree they now claim to be, then they would have taken steps to ensure they did not leave themselves - and by extension their users' details, vulnerable to such an action as this.

To this date no records have yet been handed over - but if it happens that they are (as currently seems likely) we must remember that it is Youtube who is in the wrong, not Viacom, who are perfectly within their rights to take the action they have. Google's PR is working overtime to counter such a conclusion, but the simple truth is that it is Youtube that has breached the law - and not Viacom.

Some users no doubt will not be concerned over privacy and would happily forsake it in return for access to the content that they view - even when it is protected by copyright. Others though will probably be up in arms about the principles of the issue - and these users would do well to ignore much of Google's Youtube PR spiel and remember the facts of how such a case has come about...

Though legally justified, Viacom's request could be considered slightly excessive - but that is not really the issue. The main point is that Google has payed little heed to warnings about this potential problem, and will now have to have to pay for this carelessness with the sacrifice of damaging user trust.

Dejan Levi