News Blog

Google's Orkut social network isn't just big in Brazil. It's also popular in India, especially among software developers, according to a new survey.

Despite Facebook's efforts to promote that social network as the platform of choice for third-party application developers, Orkut is used by twice as many software programmers in India than either Facebook or MySpace, according to an Evans Data survey of more than 300 developers in India. Software programmers in that country are heavy users of social networks in general.

Seventy-three percent of those surveyed said they had used Orkut, compared with 35 percent for Facebook and 32 percent for MySpace.

"Capturing mindshare with developers in fast-growing emerging development markets like India and Brazil gives them (Google) a strategic advantage going forward in further cultivating this very important community," Evans Data Chief Executive John Andrews said in a statement.

Google has released new domains specific to India and Brazil as a result of the popularity in those countries.

The independent survey was conducted in late May and early June.

Despite winning an important legal victory against Google last week, Viacom's public image is taking a beating.

Ever since Viacom, parent company of MTV and Paramount Pictures, filed a $1 billion copyright suit against Google's YouTube last year, Google has won kudos for championing the rights of Internet users. On the other side, Viacom was blasted by critics who accused it of trying to lock down information and block people from enjoying South Park and The Daily Show.

Neither of these two perceptions is entirely accurate. But what is true is that there is little Viacom--or any other big media firm trying to enforce its copyright online--can do to avoid being saddled with the image of a corporate bully. Companies considering whether to follow Viacom's lead should carefully weigh the risks of potentially alienating consumers.

Last week, Viacom was widely criticized on the Web after a judge ordered Google to turn over information that included YouTube usernames, Internet Protocol addresses and the viewing histories of YouTube's users. Viacom representatives denied that the company had ever requested any personally identifiable information.

By then, the damage was done. Viacom was branded an enemy of the Internet and of privacy. This kind of public relations drubbing shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

Advantage: Google
Look at what Viacom is up against. Many Internet users have simply come to think of free Internet content as their right. Any attempt to restrict access is perceived as an attack on Web freedom. 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.

Google is also savvy when it comes to public-relations scuffles, say critics. Not all of Viacom's image problems are self inflicted, says Louis Solomon, an attorney representing a group of copyright holders who have sued YouTube for copyright infringement and are working with Viacom.

"I think there is little doubt that Google has been trying to be effective in its use of the press," Solomon said. "How else do you explain why they have been collecting and using IP addresses to monetize their site (for a while now), yet only now, with great self righteousness, claim to be concerned about producing IP addresses?"

Responding to Solomon's assertion, Ricardo Reyes, a Google spokesman, said Viacom's ailing public image can be traced to another Google advantage.

"The law is on our side," he said.

A judge will be the one to determine that. What is more certain is that Google has been more willing than Viacom to debate the case in public.

Last year, Google CEO Eric Schmidt made news several times by suggesting that Viacom was overly litigious. At a conference in April, Schmidt said this about Viacom: "You're either doing business with them or being sued by them."

At a retreat for media and tech CEOs, Schmidt claimed Viacom was a company "built on lawsuits."

And this week, Viacom's supporters, such as Solomon, accused Google of helping to whip up controversy over the privacy issue.

Google-Viacom deal in the offing?
On Monday evening, sources close to the discussions between Google and Viacom said they were close to reaching an agreement which would allow YouTube to redact IP addresses and usernames.

Did the bad PR affect Viacom's decision? A company's public image certainly can impact business.

Companies dueling it out in court often hire public relations firms to take their case to the masses. They may sense that their opponent is sensitive to negative press. A well-designed PR strategy can hurt the other guy's bottom line, and possibly bring on a settlement.

One way Viacom could instantly improve relations with Internet users is to simply drop the lawsuit, according to Erick Hachenburg, the CEO of Metacafe, a video-sharing rival of YouTube's.

Hachenburg argues that content companies have to decide between one of two ways to handle copyright issues on the Web.

He said the first way is the one chosen by Hulu, the video portal created by News Corp. and NBC Universal. Hulu allows users share videos and the company has syndicated content across the Web (Viacom has traditionally preferred to host its own content but has recently been boosting the number of syndication deals).

The alternative to the Hulu-esque strategy is to follow in the footsteps of the Recording Industry Association of America and solve problems with lawsuits.

"I hope Viacom doesn't use the (YouTube user) information to sue consumers," Hachenburg said. "Clearly there is an underlying question: how much do you want to adapt your strategy to live in Web. 2.0? Hulu is embracing Web 2.0 ideas, and I think they are finding success."

Updated at 12:35 p.m. and 3:50 p.m.: Comments from privacy advocates have been added.

Google apparently decided to keep it clean, in more ways than one.

The company has made a minor change to its home page, adding a link to its copyright line that leads to its Privacy Center. Google's decision, noted Thursday afternoon in a corporate blog and a public policy blog, was an attempt to quell a controversy over the posting of its privacy policy.

The attempt succeeded.

Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said Saturday that his group is "pleased" with the decision.

"This was not only required by California law (and Google is a California corporation) but is also the standard practice for commercial Web sites," he said in an e-mail.

The Electronic Privacy Information Center had joined with the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the World Privacy Forum in leading the effort to press Google to make the change.

Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum, also welcomed Google's decision.

"Although privacy policies are not a guarantee of perfect privacy practices, they are still an important tool for consumers," she said Saturday in an e-mail. Dixon added that such links are "something consumers have come to expect, and rightly so given that it is a standard practice."

The timing of Google's announcement--the afternoon before a long holiday weekend--may have appeared suspicious to some. But Rotenberg noted that his group "helped draw attention to the 30-day time limit in the California law following notice. We literally counted to 30 after sending the letter. Day 31 arrived and Google posted the link."

(Credit: Google)

Saul Hansell, a reporter with The New York Times, first brought the issue to light in May when he asked whether the company was violating California law by not posting a link to its privacy policy on its home page.

Privacy advocates soon got involved, sending Google a formal letter on June 3 (PDF). Google had maintained that it was doing nothing unlawful.

Being a holiday weekend, reaction to Google's change has been a bit sparse. At least one member of the blogosphere asserts that the link doesn't resolve the issue because it doesn't link directly to the privacy policy. Another concludes that the whole controversy was silly to begin with.

Google competitors Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and Ask.com, by the way, all provide links to their privacy policies on their home pages.

A couple of side notes: Google Vice President Marissa Mayer noted in the corporate blog that Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin required the famously sparse home page to remain clean at 28 words, even with the change. Thus, the company removed the word "Google" from the copyright line and replaced it with "Privacy." Also her blog's title--"What comes next in this series? 13, 33, 53, 61, 37, 28..."--was remarkably obscure.

A day before the United States celebrates its independence, we continue to question our individual freedoms online. In Thursday's Daily Debrief, CNET News.com Editor in Chief Dan Farber and I discuss a federal judge's recent ruling in the ongoing Google-Viacom lawsuit that orders Google to turn over YouTube user activity. This will include videos watched, IP addresses, and usernames as part of an ongoing copyright infringement case.

Understandably, this news is disconcerting for YouTube users. Sources tell CNET News.com, however, that if Viacom uses this information for anything other than investigating piracy issues, it will be held in contempt of court. Regardless, Farber makes the point that this ruling could now set a precedent for other online privacy and security battles. Representatives from the Electronic Frontier Foundation agree, arguing that this court order will slowly erode the online rights we have come to enjoy and appreciate. Sounds like fireworks of a different kind this Fourth of July.

Viacom is getting its hands on some of YouTube's sensitive user data as a result of the copyright infringement lawsuit the conglomerate filed a year ago.

The two companies are in the discovery part of the case and must make certain information available to each other. On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that Google must turn over YouTube user activity--videos watched, IP addresses, and usernames.

Google responded on Thursday in a statement to the court's order.

"We are pleased the court put some limits on discovery," Google said in the statement, "including refusing to allow Viacom to access users' private videos and our search technology. We are disappointed the court granted Viacom's overreaching demand for viewing history. We are asking Viacom to respect users' privacy and allow us to anonymize the logs before producing them under the court's order."

CNET News.com reported that Viacom is under strict instructions from the court not to use the data for anything other than proving the prevalence of infringement on YouTube.

Viacom, therefore, is forbidden from targeting individual users in the manner of the Recording Industry Association of America's lawsuits against individuals found to be downloading illegal music.

The case is important to Internet users because it could help define the scope of the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That's the part of copyright law that Google and other Internet service providers claim protects them from being held responsible for the actions of their users.

Don't look for the case to get to court anytime soon. The discovery part of the case isn't expected to end until sometime next year.

What might prove interesting in the meantime is that among the people Google has asked to depose are Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert of the The Colbert Report.

Google scored a legal victory in keeping its search source code secret from Viacom, but YouTube users were not so fortunate with their privacy.

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday (PDF) that the search giant doesn't have to turn over the code to Viacom, which filed a $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Google in 2007.

In granting Google's motion for a protective order, U.S. District Judge Louis L. Stanton in Manhattan agreed with Google's characterization of the source code as a trade secret that can't be disclosed without risking the loss of business.

"YouTube and Google should not be made to place this vital asset in hazard merely to allay speculation," the judge said. "A plausible showing that YouTube and Google's denials are false, and that the search function can and has been used to discriminate in favor of infringing content, should be required before disclosure of so valuable and vulnerable an asset is compelled."

The judge also denied Viacom's motion for Google to produce source code for its Video Identification Tool, which helps copyright notify Google of copyright infringement.

However, the judge granted a Viacom motion that records of every video watched by YouTube users, including their login names and IP addresses, be turned over to the entertainment giant.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the ruling a threat to YouTube users' privacy.

"The court's order grants Viacom's request and erroneously ignores the protections of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), and threatens to expose deeply private information about what videos are watched by YouTube users," the EFF said in a statement.

At stake in the legal battle is a key part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the 1998 law that shields Web site owners from copyright infringement involving material published by users. The "safe harbor" provision in the law can protect against infringement claims as long as copyrighted material is removed upon notification.

After the suit, YouTube launched an antipiracy tool that checks uploaded videos against the original content in an effort to flag piracy.

The U.S. Department of Justice has launched a civil investigation into the proposed Yahoo-Google ad partnership. In Wednesday's edition of the Daily Debrief, I sit down with News.com's Dawn Kawamoto to talk about the nature of this investigation and what we can expect over the coming months.

Kawamoto explains that Yahoo, in particular, has been more than accommodating to ensure a smooth investigation, or a clean bill of health, if you will. The company has a lot to gain financially if everything goes as planned (to the tune of $800 million in its first year). Its competitors, however (ahem, Microsoft), are insisting on careful scrutiny of documents, conversations, and outside relationships to ensure this partnership does not raise any antitrust concerns.

Updated at 7:40 a.m. PDT Wednesday with comments from a former Department of Justice antitrust attorney, and a Department of Justice spokeswoman.

The U.S. Department of Justice plans to gather information from third parties in a probe of the advertising deal struck last month between Google and Yahoo, according to sources familiar with these types of investigations.

Within the next week, the Justice Department is expected to issue civil investigative demands (CIDs) that seek documents from the third parties, said one source, noting the information requested could range from a general request on the competitive landscape to very specific requests involving Yahoo and Google.

Third parties that are expected to receive the CIDs include competitors, customers such as major advertisers, and potential partners, the source added.

Representatives for Yahoo and Google did not immediately return requests for comment. But the Justice Department made a brief statement.

"We're looking at the proposed transaction. We're conducting a civil investigation," spokeswoman Gina Talamona said, declining to offer details about the process or how long it would take.

Yahoo announced the nonexclusive partnership in June under which rival Google would supply it with some search ads, a move that could increase Yahoo search revenue but that also gives Google even more power in the market. Yahoo expects the 10-year deal to raise revenue by $800 million in its first year and to provide an extra $250 million to $450 million in incremental operating cash flow.

The partnership idea came to light during Microsoft's attempt to acquire Yahoo, which put more pressure on the Internet company to improve its financial results.

Faced with that financial challenge and a desire to push the Google ad deal through, Yahoo proposed to regulators that it subject the search advertising deal to a review process similar to one used for major mergers under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, said a source familiar with Yahoo.

Under the proposal, which was made to regulators when Microsoft still had a buyout offer on the table for Yahoo, the Internet search pioneer said it would give the Justice Department three and half months to review the deal before it implements the search advertising partnership.

After Microsoft's offer to acquire all of Yahoo was withdrawn, Yahoo could not tell the Justice Department it would not honor its earlier proposal, said the source familiar with the Internet company. The Justice Department and Yahoo later signed a memorandum of understanding that would give regulators time to review documents and interview executives and board members.

"This has been a formal investigation since day one, given its high-profile. There was never the option to have an informal investigation done," said the source, noting a formal investigation entails the Justice Department staff receiving the blessing from a superior like the assistant attorney general in the antitrust division. "And it would be negligent not to issue CIDs to third parties, when conducting a formal investigation."

Only general document requests made so far
The Justice Department has made very general document requests of Yahoo, noted the source. Such requests range from the paperwork and correspondence of executives and board members that address how a transaction or agreement would affect competition to documents on the search market and competitors. And while the document requests are currently general in nature, Yahoo will likely see more specific type of requests in the next 30 to 40 days, added the source.

To date, the Justice Department has not yet interviewed Yahoo executives or board members, but such requests are expected to be made between now and the first week in August, the source noted.

If the Yahoo-Google investigation moves at a pace similar to that of other antitrust cases, the Justice Department may get down to specific issues it wants to address within four to five weeks after Labor Day.

"When the DOJ says, 'We have concerns about...,' it usually means the field has been narrowed," said the source.

One former Justice Department antitrust attorney said the regulators will likely focus on one of two issues, or both--whether Yahoo will have an incentive not to compete as hard as it previously did against Google and whether there is a coordination of competition.

In an effort to dispel antitrust concerns surrounding the deal, Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang went to Capitol Hill in June and met with Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), who chairs the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee.

Kohl had previously expressed concerns that the deal between two technology search rivals could affect competition and have ramifications for advertisers and consumers. He said at the time that the antitrust subcommittee would investigate the competitive and privacy implications of the deal.

A congressional investigation, however, is separate from a Justice Department investigation.

In this particular case, which is not a merger of two companies, the Justice Department can't force Yahoo and Google to comply with its wishes in order to receive clearance on the deal. Instead, the regulators can either file a lawsuit before, during, or after Yahoo and Google begin their search advertising partnership.

In April, a limited two-week search ad deal was declared a success by Google and Yahoo, but even the limited partnership raised antitrust hackles at Microsoft. Microsoft brought up antitrust concerns when the search ad test began, saying the move would reinforce Google's dominance in the search ad business.

Google countered that search ads are only a narrow part of the online ad market and that Yahoo is the strongest company when it comes to the graphical "display" ads.

Google's share of the U.S. search market reached 68.29 percent in May, according to Hitwise's most recent numbers. Yahoo's share of the market declined to 19.95 percent from 20.28 percent at the same time.

The Washington Post first reported news of the CIDs on its Web site Tuesday evening, citing sources close to the inquiry.

CNET News.com's Dawn Kawamoto and Stephen Shankland contributed to this report.

R.J. Pittman, Google's director of product management for Consumer Search Properties, shared some details of future versions of image search. In the interview with Beet.tv's Andy Plesser, Pittman said that Google is developing visual crawling software that can be used for facial recognition and scene analysis. In addition images can be matched with display ads and utilize geotagging information for various applications.

Watch the video