Supreme Court To Decide How 1988 Videotape Privacy Law Applies To Online Video

Comments

• Savaran@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Well, in the least consumer friendly fashion given this court.

  source

  • xylogx@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I feel like they are targeting big tech here.

    source
• dance_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  The Supreme Court is taking up a case on whether Paramount violated the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) by disclosing a user’s viewing history to Facebook. The case, Michael Salazar v. Paramount Global, hinges on the law’s definition of the word “consumer.”

  source

  • Prox@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Michael Salazar claims that his subscription to a 247Sports e-newsletter qualifies him as a “consumer.” But since he did not subscribe to “audio visual materials,” the district court held that he was not a “consumer” and dismissed the complaint.

    source
• rmt_online@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Depending on how they rule, this could set us back about a couple of decades!!! :-(

  source

  • 69420@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Image

    source
  • mrnobody@reddthat.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Could you explain? Why would that set us back? You mean if Paramount wins?

    source
• dan@upvote.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Interesting case. If the plaintiff wins, I suspect this will mean that sites with videos won’t be able to use third-party analytics scripts (not just Meta pixel, but also things like Google Analytics), which would be a pretty large change.

  I’d love to see first-party tracking become more popular again. I self-host Plausible for my sites, but I’ve considered switching to Swetrix.

  source
• CaptKoala@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  That’s a lot of words to say “this area needs reform”

  source
• sturmblast@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  … news laws for new mediums

  source