Google execs convicted in Italy

[zeus]

An Italian court has convicted three Google executives in a trial over a video showing a teenager with Down's Syndrome being bullied.

The Google employees were accused of breaking Italian law by allowing the video to be posted online.

Judge Oscar Magi absolved the three of defamation but convicted them of privacy violations.

more here

[news.bbc.co.uk...]

In Italy 3 Google executives seeing bad times after the 2006 transmission of a video showing the bullying of a youth with Down syndrome.



Now of cause Im against Googles way of handling Privacy and the collection information about each user, like 1984 book, but how should they watch every video uploaded thats impossible, so I think this time its not really what we want to see Google convicted for there 1000 other cases which are more important.

[edited by: engine at 11:38 am (utc) on Feb 24, 2010]
[edit reason] added quote [/edit]

[docbird]

- of course, "Brave New World" sounds good on surface, while story not paradise. Rather like comprehensive generating of all content added everywhere [says I, heading off to Facebook...]

[Nobias]

Google has time to manually reset the view count of the videos they (or the government they support) don't like so that they get buried, but they don't have time to check if posted videos are legal..

Oh well, everyone has their priorities and agendas.

[docbird]

sorry, I meant "comprehensive vetting of all content"
- "comprehensive generating" may yet happen tho

[Demaestro]

Brett you make a great point but to further your analogy of network cable, this ruling would be the equiv of CBS execs being personally fined for JT and Miss Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"

[mack]

Here's an analogy that spirings to mind.

Think of a website as a house. You rent the house from a rental company. You also allow a friend to stay in your house.

If a website is a house, and a host is a rental company then users to your site are people you let stay.

What if you suspect the friend you let stay is engaged in criminal activity? and items related to this crime are in your house. why would the rental company be under legal responsability.

In this case Youtube is the house, the "friends" are users who break laws. You are responsible for what goes on under your roof.

Mack.

[claus]

I tend to disagree. Whoever breaks the law in my house breaks the law. I don't.

So, the host of (e.g.) a video should not be blamed if that video breaks some law. However, the person who made the video should be legally prosecuted if that video breaks the law.

(The notion that a video can be illegal still sounds weird to me. But, eg. if it's a stolen video the person who stole it is a thief and we don't need no new laws to establish that. If it's child #*$! the people who recorded it are criminals and should be prosecuted - we need no new laws for that. If someone is bullying someone else, then the person doing the bullying should be prosecuted - we need no new laws for that. Etc.)

[edited by: claus at 2:30 am (utc) on Feb 25, 2010]

[incrediBILL]

In this case Youtube is the house, the "friends" are users who break laws. You are responsible for what goes on under your roof.

When you're just a landlord (host), you're typically not liable for what the tenant does until reported to the landlord, then you have a deadline to evict the tenant to avoid any liability.

Youtube is way more than the landlord, they are active participants in the activities of the tenant via advertisements in the tenants content and around it.

They are publishers and broadcasters.

Publishers and broadcasters are responsible for the content they publish and broadcast.

It YouTube merely rented the space to other publishers and didn't shove their own ads on the page, the argument could be held that they're just landlords or a host.

However, that isn't the case.

Like I said before, the solution is simple, charge people to submit if they want their submissions fast tracked to pay for the personnel needed to moderate all the videos.

If you don't pay, your video goes into a black hole that comes out whenever it gets approved, if ever.

It's possible people would revolt at charges and go elsewhere, then the problem would be someone else's, problem solved yet again ;)

However, if reviewing all videos becomes standard practice everywhere, most likely all streaming video sites would end up charging for submission.

[Brett_Tabke]

>I think Google believes that everything on the Internet should be open and free

True, as long as it doesn't touch Google market share. Seriously - ever notice that Google waxes poetic about internet freedom on everything in their space that doesn't hurt their core markets?

>Have you tried scraping Google results lately?

exactly. Google claims that their serps are their content and valued added product - this is no different than the rest of the web site owners on the web. Yet Google wants to data mine the entire net and serve it in SERPs and cached pages. However, anyone wanting to do the same to Google is threatened and ip blocked.

How come our value added content is worthy of ripping by Google and not quid-pro-quo?

[google.com...]

> CBS execs being personally fined for JT and
> Miss Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction"

And who is to say they shouldn't have been? As the father of a 3yr old, my opinions on what is acceptable on TV is rapidly morphing. As long as businesses are souless/lawless entities and no one is accountable, then the Enrons of the world will continue.

[zett]

As I have said before: Google could only grow to their current size by their evil interpretation of copyright and privacy laws. Once they had reached a certain size, they declared victory over the web and privacy and copyright.

They clearly understand that they can not create, licence, or verify massive amounts of content items while still being profitable. However, they need massive amounts of content, because this is why users are coming in the first place. And they need to be hugely profitable, because, er, they just love money.

(It never fails to amaze me that I can find virtually any song I want on Youtube. Did you notice that there are huge numbers of "videos" that consist of a song in HiFi quality with just the image of the CD cover? How is this any different from Napster, and even hosted on Google's servers? I know, I should not be surprised, but I am whenever I see this.)

Anyone who claims that "checks are impossible for Google" leaves out the second part of the sentence "while still being profitable". As I said before, there are ways to check that content is correct and legal, that you get to know the identity of an uploader, that an upload has a model release, etc etc. This stuff is being done every single day by honest web services out there (e.g. stock photo services).

But let's be honest: Google's business case would just make *POOOF* if they'd actually deploy such mechanisms. And I guess that is the reason why most webmasters are not stinkin' rich from their web activities: many are still afraid to be prosecuted when steping over to the dark side of the web by, say, offering ripped videos and music with ads next to it.

Just because Google is big and rich and powerful the company believes to be exempt from being held responsible. Not in Italy. The Italian decision hopefully has given them a wakeup call. And IIRC the Viacom vs. Youtube decision is still open. That could be another blow for Youtube and Google.

And yes, I think that charging for uploads is the way to go.

[J_RaD]

No, Torrent sites DO NOT host ANY content and it isn't "all good". Torrent sites track content that lives on it's users computers.

yes yes i know how it works im just drawing the line to how sites that don't actually host content are under fire when youtube which has it right there on the server doesn't.

And as others have pointed out they openly rip mp3 files from youtube like its napster! Also with HD video now hitting youtube...geez

[onepointone]

When I want to listen to one of my favorite 'oldies' that I never bought (on vinyl, cassette, mp3), I just go to youtube.

But I do think it's kind of 'freeloading'.

I would never dream of offering similar audio on one of my personal sites. (afraid of being sued)Look what happened with the RIAA cases.

[tangor]

Called "deep pockets" and (ahem) Euro states looking to make up for failure of the Euro. Club me for getting it right and stating politics...

[StoutFiles]

When I want to listen to one of my favorite 'oldies' that I never bought (on vinyl, cassette, mp3), I just go to youtube.

Just once actually. All the videos can have the music stripped right off of them, numerous websites offer the service. YouTube is the easiest, risk-free way of getting almost any audio file. For some reason I can't comprehend, music continues to be offered and is only growing by the day even though Google has the software to detect and remove popular songs.

Oh wait, that's right, YouTube WANTS popular music on their site. Might as well leave it on till someone complains, right?

[Edge]

but how should they watch every video uploaded thats impossible

Let's change the statement:

"but how should they watch every video uploaded thats impossible" and make a huge profit?...

Websites can vet all user content, however doing it cost-effective is the real rub.

[tangor]

Forget the cost, forget most anything else... what this ruling does is make the provider responsible, as some have noted as editor, and others noted as service, and specific for Italy. US, UK laws prevent this and rely on "first notice" for take down. Italy has chosen a different method of "know it and prevent it". For me that looks like killing all Italian IPs from here on out.

What I know and what somebody might take offense to is beyond my means... after all I am not Italian and that puts me behind the eight ball before we get to what might be not okay in Italy... Cheaper to cut Italy out of the picture than to worry about stuff like this and "stuff" is spelled a bit differently! :)

[Gomvents]

I bet if they charged just $9.95 / year to be able to upload to YouTube it would cut down on a lot of spam and underage people posting / accessing inappropriate content.

[oodlum]

What about web-hosts? By the same logic they should be required to review the content of every site they host before they allow that site online or any content update.

I've seen the same erroneous argument elsewhere: "you may as well sue the postal service for transporting hate mail".

You're confusing the transmission of content with the publication of content. Safe harbour does not apply here.

If the postal service published the hate mail, and ran ads with it, they would absolutely be responsible for it.

Google is not just the carrier, but the publisher. They are condoning this content by publishing it under their banner and monetizing it with contextual ads. They are the end brand under which these videos are shown.

If Google or anyone else wants to make money from a video they should really make the time to watch it first.

[Demaestro]

Yet Google wants to data mine the entire net and serve it in SERPs and cached pages. However, anyone wanting to do the same to Google is threatened and ip blocked.

If Google didn't respect your robots.txt file your reaction would be similar. Don't forget Yahoo does this, Bing does this, Cuil does this... why the hurt feelings about Goog?

And who is to say they shouldn't have been?

So punishing people other than the rule breakers makes sense to you? The execs allowed the show to run live, that was their error, but to hold them financially responsible, not the company, but the individuals makes NO sense to me.

Youtube is way more than the landlord, they are active participants in the activities of the tenant via advertisements in the tenants content and around it.

So by the same logic the owner of a theater who rents the stage to a production group is an active participant if they kill a bat on stage IF he has posters advertising other businesses in and around the property but isn't if he doesn't have ads in and around the property?

This site has become so cynical of anything Goog I barely recognize it anymore. Goog has built and made available so many great tools and things for people using the Internet, and what is stranger to me is that the main complaint from most is that they dare try to profit from this. They aren't doing this for free. It is like criticizing doctors for wanting money for helping people and saying "They don't want to help, they only want money"

It really is getting out of hand. What happened to "The Switzerland of search" Seems this site has picked a side and it is any side but Googles.

[Leosghost]

So by the same logic the owner of a theater who rents the stage to a production group is an active participant if they kill a bat on stage IF he has posters advertising other businesses in and around the property but isn't if he doesn't have ads in and around the property?

He would be if he placed ads mentioning bats ..because that would mean that he knew what was going on and what it was about and was trying to profit from it's subject matter..rather like contextual ads ..

Goog has built

By taking from webmasters content..wrapping ads around what they took ..and using the revenue generated to build other things based on content that they didnt create to wrap ads around ..and they rinsed and repeated ..and did it it again ..and again..etc ..that is what they have done ..

And they dont care what they wrap their ads around ..nor who it really belongs to ..nor what it portrays ..they still run adsense on sites with adult material and warez..if the site has enough visitors their TOS goes out the window ..and they ran ads on a page hosted on their own server with a video of a handicapped kid being beaten up ..because it would hurt their bottom line or their branding to pro actively filter what they run ads around ..their system can filter text to automatically take out illegal sites from the adsense network and even their serps ..but they dont choose to ..because showing illegal sites and links to them and running ads around serps that link to illegal material or on sites that carry it .. makes them money..as individuals ( because remember they dont pay dividends ) ..so It all goes to the individuals who decide the policy ..

And no amorphous "company" decided that ..individuals did ..so as to be able to individually make more money..so individuals must pay the price ..

[Demaestro]

By taking from webmasters content

And giving nothing in return.... right?

And no amorphous "company" decided that

Decided what? To profit from an index of websites? No one is going to do all that work and host all the info for free. I find value in being able to search the content of the internet in one place. I find value in an index that allows people to find me on the Internet. I am not offended that the company providing this service is trying to profit. That is what companies do.

so individuals must pay the price

Pay the price for what exactly?

[Leosghost]

In answer to your questions ..read my post again ..

Oh and those of us who were on the internet before goog and didn't need adsense to live ..and still dont ..were being found perfectly well before goog arrived ..and will be doing perfectly well when they have gone ..

They didnt invent indexing ..nor search..in fact they didn't invent contextual advertising either ..

The "good" that you beleive they do ..does not ( even if you were correct in your "belief" ..which I and many others do not agree you are ) negate the evil that they do ..nor their responsibility for it ..especially the fact that the internet is now awash with illegal, infringing, unethical crap ..with adsense around it and the many of the people who put it there calling themselves publishers or entertainers when all they are is plagiarists and peddlers of stolen wares and violence filmed on phonecams..

[ppc_newbie]

What about web-hosts? By the same logic they should be required to review the content of every site they host before they allow that site online or any content update.

People here keep getting crossed signals about the term "webhost" because these sites are intentionally try to muddy the waters.

Web-hosts were specifically exempted from that responsibility under the USA DMCAs "safe-harbour" provisions(similar in other countries). As long as they are only supplying the hardware & internet connection for a "website".

So a lot of these websites(SEs, tubes, torrents, file-sharing, etc.) are corrupting the concept by calling themselves web-hosts, because they allow users to upload content or they scrape content.

There is a major push coming to redefine web host to seperate it into the two different areas.

When it costs millions of dollars to produce content, the producers better be able to make money, or they will stop making content. Since they are getting ripped off for billions of dollars, they are starting to push back hard. One group that I've been working with is suggesting a possible way is to flood the system with millions of DMCA-512(h)supoenas being filed overloading courts & the law enforcement agencies(FBI) until the laws get rewritten. And those supoenas will also mean that every "web-host" can expect computer forensic auditors to be examing every bit of their systems many times.

Surfers expecting everything on the interweb to be FREE will has to learn that content cost money, and can't be always taken for free.

[Demaestro]

:(

[blend27]

(-|/|(-|_? + *\

[StoutFiles]

Decided what? To profit from an index of websites? No one is going to do all that work and host all the info for free. I find value in being able to search the content of the internet in one place. I find value in an index that allows people to find me on the Internet. I am not offended that the company providing this service is trying to profit. That is what companies do.

Given the actual thread topic, people are angry at Google for trying to profit off of content that isn't their own. Also, for everything good that Google does people will have a complaint about something bad they do.

Directing people to websites while showing ads? Good.
Caching website results and using them in your news aggregator? Bad.

Hosting videos that users create and submit originally? Good.
Hosting videos of TV shows and music videos that users submit illegally? Bad.

Creating a large company making lots of money in many different areas? Good.
Monopolizing the markets of online search and advertising? Bad.

[docbird]

As I noted, most of my videos on youtube don't appear with ads.

Only one does: and this after faffing about with review process w google, including to check it wasn't tv programme I'd ripped.
I get some revenue sharing (turns out to be tiny, but some folks evidently do ok w youtube channels) - so don't consider this some wicked Gorg plot.

If youtube as fast and loose with where it slapped advertising as many a site, would surely find it easier to make money.