Viacom V. YouTube All About Theft, Not Privacy

By Sarah Jenkins

In the blogosphere, the billion-dollar clash between Viacom and YouTube is being portrayed as a battle of media giants, with “old” media behemoth Viacom out to strip away everything fun from “new” media phenomenon YouTube and its millions of Web viewers. It’s also pitched as YouTube as the protector of prized Internet privacy, with Viacom — and the federal judge who ruled in the corporation’s favor last week — primed to find out everything about who YouTube users are and what they watch.

The knee-jerk reaction of privacy advocates couldn’t be stronger.

But it also couldn’t be more wrong.

It’s part of the $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit filed last year by Viacom, parent company of MTV and Paramount Pictures, against YouTube and its corporate parent Google. Last week, U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton in New York ordered the Internet video sharing site to hand over logon names and Internet addresses of every person who has viewed videos on the site. The list may encompass tens of millions of people.

Viacom had said it wants YouTube’s logs to determine if unauthorized — read, copyrighted — material makes up a major share of what gets watched there. Viacom, which owns the copyrights to hit shows such as “The Colbert Report” and “South Park,” claims it loses potential revenue when that kind of popular content shows up on YouTube and other unauthorized sites.

But Viacom is not just pitting its copyright concerns against YouTube and Google; it is also up against millions of Internet users who have come to think of free Internet content as their right. As any number of bloggers and privacy advocates have argued since the ruling, any attempt to restrict access is perceived as an attack on Web freedom. As one blogger wrote, “Google, which has a long history of facing down copyright owners, including book publishers, newspapers, and Hollywood studios, has earned respect from those who see content owners as money grubbers and many copyright laws as anti- consumer.”

We believe the issue is more fundamental: Copyright infringement – - selling, or giving away, something you don’t own — is stealing.

That was true in the Napster “music-swapping” case in 2001, it was true in the Grokster Ltd. songs- and movie-sharing case in 2005, and it’s true in the Viacom-YouTube case this year.

As to the privacy aspect of the current case, we are not convinced there is cause for major concern.

The judge did not say Viacom can have everyone’s “private” browsing information. Rather, he has provided the company with a tool to see how much “stolen” material was viewed. Viacom said a protective order dictated that only its outside lawyers and experts could access the raw data, and that it could be used solely to make the case against Google.

Think of this as turning over surveillance tapes from a convenience store robbery. There isn’t an assumption of privacy in these cases any more, because the companies are putting signs on the front door alerting customers — and potential robbers — that cameras are in use. Law-abiding customers may not like knowing they are being videotaped, but they understand the reason — and they don’t claim a violation of privacy every time they walk through the door.

As we noted three years ago in the Grokster case, online technology was outrunning the legal system when the Internet was first gaining widespread use. That’s changing as the courts continue to catch up.

And it’s only fitting. Even the marvel that is the Internet does not carry a guarantee of absolute privacy or a license to steal.

Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins, Bill Lee and Karen Troianello.

Yakima Herald-Republic

(c) 2008 Yakima Herald-Republic. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.