There is a bit of a furor right now for the judge that ordered Google to hand over logging data, identifying usernames and ip addresses associated with video views.

I decided to take a look at the judge’s ruling, and there were some very interesting discoveries. Viacom asked for, in this order:

• The code that powers google.com to ensure that “defendants did not modify the search tool to more easily find infringing material.”
• The code that powers youtube.com, for the same reason
• As well they need the code to ensure that defendants did all that could be done to protect against infringement.
• The source code to the “Video ID” project, which compares incoming videos to “fingerprints” of videos provided by copyright holders. (Explanation a bit further on)
• Copies of all videos that were removed
• And finally, the IP Addresses and Usernames logging data associated with videos.

Take a look at that list. Viacom essentially fired a massive cannon at Google, asking for all their internal trade secrets, and as noted by the judge, they never promised they wouldn’t share those secrets. In addition, Viacom asked for the advertising database schema!

Pretty much, this ties in with what I said before about these broadcasts companies becoming scared of the many-to-many patterns we are seeing.

Viacom did whats called setting up the shot. They asked for extremely irrational things, low prices if you will, and if it had worked, they would have been extremely well off. Then, they sneak in a much less irrational request, one that Google’s lawyers fell for, which is what Viacom wanted all along. In comparison to the incredibly irrational requests, the logging data seemed eminently reasonable.

It was almost a win-win process, so long as Google fell for something or made a mistake. And they did.

Luckily the EFF are already reacting, citing the Video Privacy Act.

I sincerely Google provides the data in paper format.

I just thought I’d post this form letter I recieved from the local conservative MP:

Dear Mr. Laing,

Thank you for your recent e-mail which expressed your concerns regarding amendments to the Copyright Act.

After careful analysis of existing legislation and consultations with stakeholders, our government introduced Bill C-61 which will amend the current Copyright Act and bring it in line with advances in technology and current international standards.

These amendments were much needed and long overdue.  It has been ten years since the last major reform of this important legislation.  In that time we have seen nothing short of an Internet revolution and major advancements in technology.

In today’s technological environment, strong copyright law becomes even more important both to ensure the rights of those who hold copyright are protected and to ensure that users have access to copyrighted works.  That is why our government has made every effort to ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance between creators, rights holders and consumers.

For creators and rights holders, people who work hard to use their talents and abilities to create things, the Copyright Act provides protection over the communication, reproduction and other uses of their work while ensuring they are fairly remunerated for their efforts.

For the average consumer, Bill C-61 means you will now be able to record television shows for later viewing(time shifting); copy legally acquired music onto other devices such as MP3 players or cellphones; and make backup copies of legally acquired books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own(format shifting).

The Bill also provides exceptions for different categories of users by permitting teachers, schools, public libraries, archives and museums to make copies of copyrighted materials for educational purposes.

Should individuals find themselves in violation of copyright infringement, the Bill provides protection from massive lawsuits for individuals who find themselves in violation of copyright infringement for private, non-commercial use.  In this regard, exposure to liability is limited to a fixed amount of $500 provided that the material is not protected by a technological measure(TM or digital lock).

Ensuring that artists, consumers and providers of digital technologies are protected and that copyright is respected will in the end promote creativity, innovation and competition in a digital, knowledge-based economy.

I understand your concerns and want to assure you that over the next several months our Government will continue to consult with Canadians to ensure the legislation balances the rights of all parties.

I look forward to a vibrant debate over the Bill’s provisions as it moves through the legislative process and I am confident that this debate will result in a stronger, distinctly Canadian approach to copyright law in Canada.

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and opinions with me.  If you would like to discuss this or any other issue please feel free to e-mail or telephone me at any time.

Sincerely,

Ron Cannan, MP
Kelowna – Lake Country
(250) 470-5075 (Constituency Office)
(613) 992-7006 (Parliament Hill Office)
“Your Kelowna – Lake Country Voice in Ottawa”
www.cannan.ca
ron@cannan.ca

Each and every one of those claims are patently false. I am currently working on a series of essays on the different aspects that this Bill does not talk about, or does completely wrong.

I’ll also leave you with this:

• Ten Questions for Jim Prentice

I stumbled across this: George Bush’s Resume. They label it as political humour, but I find it to be monumentally depressing. Am I ever glad I’m a Canadian. And am I ever glad to have anyone but Bush on the slate come November? I don’t care if they’re black, white, male or female, any of them could do a better job than Bush did.

And you know what? I pity him. He’s been used. He will go down as the worst president in U.S. History. And I don’t think its his fault. I think he was used by his dad, and his dad’s friends, and the corporations behind them. I truly and honestly pity the man, because he’s just a puppet, with the corporation’s hands up his ass. And for that, for not having the strength to say no, to be a good and righteous man, he will now be reviled for many, many years. I pity him.