Paul Sweeting is the editor of ContentAgenda.com and a columnist for Video Business. He has covered the home entertainment industries since 1985 for Billboard, Variety, Publishers Weekly and other leading business publications. He is based in Washington, DC.
For the reasons set forth above:Some of those requests may simply have been tactical--an effort by Viacom to increase the cost and effort to Google of defending itself. But clearly Viacom was looking to learn as much as possible about YouTube's technical and informational capacity to monetize user-created videos, all of which would be useful beyond merely enforcing its copyrights.
(1) The cross-motion for a protective order barring disclosure of the source code for the YouTube.com search function is granted, and the motion to compel production of that search code is denied;
(2) The motion to compel production of the source code for the Video ID program is denied;
(3) The motion to compel production of all removed videos is granted;
(4) The motion to compel production of all data from the Logging database concerning each time a
YouTube video has been viewed on the YouTube website or through embedding on a third-party website is granted;
(5) The motion to compel production of those data fields which defendants have agreed to produce for works-in-suit, for all videos that have been posted to the YouTube website is denied;
(6) The motion to compel production of the schema for the Google Advertising database is denied;
(7) The motion to compel production of the schema for the Google Video Content database is granted;
(8) The motion to compel production of the private videos and the data related to them is denied at this time except to the extent it seeks production of specified non-content data about such videos.
Paul, Your post on the Viacom/YouTube litigation presents an interesting analysis which is as novel as the issues being litigated. Of course the Judge recognized the potential for the information, especially the source code, to be used in a manner beyond supporting claims Viacom has made in the case. However, some of the information that the Judge denied to Viacom could detrimentally impact their ability to counter YouTube/Google's claims that their site qualifies for the safe harbor from copyright infringement liability provided in Section 512(c) of the Copyright Act. Nancy