Oh god. This.. no. Just no.

Does this incident diminish your trust worthiness of Google ?

The article said "Promptly"

The accused user said "eventually" and "no bad feeling"

> Does this incident diminish your trust worthiness of Google ?

Google didn't own YouTube at that time...

Using the Google colors as the logo for YouTube in this post is just wrong. This has NOTHING to do with Google.

Yeah u should change the logo

This is more a problem with the justice system than with YouTube. If a court issues a subpoena, there may not be much YouTube can do about it.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this shouldn't be the way the system should work. If anything, the subpoena should have been for YouTube to remove the content.

I agree with Ed... YouTube shouldn't work as a link from lawyers to users... YouTube should take the content offline, inform the user that uploaded it via an encrypted message and leave it at that.

> Using the Google colors as the logo for YouTube
> in this post is just wrong. This has NOTHING to do
> with Google.

I have a standard icon for posts about YouTube, AdSense, Google Webmaster tools, Google Books etc. that I re-use for every post... and sometimes, update for all posts at once. Admittedly, the icon – which I did not create for this post – is not very fitting for this post as it talks about YouTube's non-Google past, so I just removed it this time.

>> Does this incident diminish your trust worthiness of Google ?

/pd, May is NOT October. Google didn't owned YouTube then right ?

"it seems to me that this shouldn't be the way the system should work. If anything, the subpoena should have been for YouTube to remove the content."

So do you believe that judges should just tell bank robbers to stop robbing banks and not punish them for their past infractions?

So what do folks think YouTube should have done? Ignored the subpoena?

this headline is completely appropriate.

you can challenge a subpoena. YouTube didn't want to look out for their users, though. so, they threw this guy under the bus to make sure they made mad money. well done Chad and Steve! hope you sleep well at night.

but, they did have the decency to thank this dude who they threw under the bus – a dude who helped make them a lot of money:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCVxQ_3Ejkg

i mean, 'hey loser – thanks for making us rich, ahole! hahahahah!'

pretty good guys, them youtubers.

You can, indeed, challenge a subpoena. This costs money. Given the number of subpoenas YouTube would likely find themselves challenging if they took the policy decision to fight each and every one they receive despite their legal advisors telling them they had little chance of success in a particular case, that might not be a particularly smart business decision, though. It would be for their lawyers, obviously, but maybe not for everyone else.

Would it satisfy folks if YouTube changed their terms and conditions to include a clause promising to challenge such subpoenas in future, provided that the person whose details were sought indemnified them against the legal costs of so doing?

No "for" or "against" opinion of Chad and Steve dilemna. Unless the details are known behind the reason for the subpoena, everything is just speculation. Court is an adversarial arena and one attorney will ask for court approval on a matter, the other side has to come up with a better argument to convince the judge not to grant the motion. If the defense's argument is weak, the judge rules in favor of the strong side. The reason for the turning over of the "user" may be tied in to an internal problem of the offended party requesting the subpoena, i.e.: Identifying a disgruntled employee with revenge in mind. Won't know anything until you're in the know.