A deal has been struck between the two battling media companies wherein Google can render the email addresses anonymous protecting the identity and viewing histories of the users who submit videos to the popular video-sharing website. The deal, however, does not apply to Google and YouTube employees who have posted videos on YouTube. These folks will likely have to submit their data to Viacom.
Keeping the viewers identities private has been a victory won by free speech advocates on both sides of the Atlantic. The campaign has been primarily championed by the San Francisco based non-profit, the Electronic Frontier Foundation who had argued that the court order earlier this month forcing Google to supply Viacom with YouTuber's private information "threatened to expose deeply private information" in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act.
The agreement struck with Google will also be extended to other litigants pursuing YouTube user information over copyright claims that includes the English Football Association Premier League, the Rodgers & Hammerstein Organisation and the Scottish Premier League.
YouTube is by far the biggest Video-sharing website and has an estimated 72 million users in the US alone, and its videos are watched more than 2.5 billion times each month.
In the UK, YouTube accounted for almost 50 percent of the 3.5 billion video clips watched by web users in March, according to the latest comScore figures.
This action comes a day after eBay won a victory in a legal battle with Tiffany. The ruling in New York stated that eBay could not be held responsible for companies selling knock-off Tiffany products on their auction website.
It seems clear that the US courts are sending a message to would be litigators fearful of illegal activity, that the companies that host fraudulent or copyrighted activity cannot be held responsible for policing, or protecting their brands and products.
This smacks of a catch 22 situation and is a bit of a sticky legal quagmire, particularly for companies and organizations trying to protect the authenticity and rights to their products. If internet users can continue to remain anonymous when posting copyrighted material what, or who is going to stop them if the platform for facilitating this activity is immune from prosecution? Are YouTube and eBay blame-free for hosting a forum for criminal activity, or because they post a disclaimer are they absconded? Do companies intent on protecting their wares have to factor in a cost for 'policing' the web, searching for would-be knock-off's or postings, thus inherrantly increasing the costs of goods and services? It would appear to be so.
Once again, the internet lines when it comes to responsibility have been pixilated, if not blurred, with the continuing struggle over internet jurisdiction and accountability, it could be a while yet before the ink on this one is completely dry.