Another Error By US Officials May Kill Megaupload Prosecution

from the another-error dept

The number of significant mistakes by law enforcement in the Megaupload case continues to grow, with the latest one being a big one. Apparently, the US judge on the domestic part of this trial has noted that a pretty big problem with the case may mean the trial never actually moves forward at all. You see, you have to actually serve criminal charges, but US officials never served Megaupload -- and due to some specifics, the concern is that Megaupload can't actually be served as a foreign company. So, due to procedural rules, the judge in the case is warning US officials that they may have a significant (to insurmountable) hurdle in actually bringing any case forward. Oops. This is becoming a huge comedy of errors.

Filed Under: criminal charges, procedural error
Companies: megaupload

Legal Analysis Of Italian Criminal Conviction Of Google Execs Says Judge Made A Big Legal Error

from the whoops dept

We were among those amazed back in February, when an Italian court ruled that three Google execs were criminally liable for a video posted on Google Video, and were sentenced to six months suspended sentences. The video in question involved some kids taunting a mentally challenged boy and throwing a tissue box at him. Within hours of Google being alerted to the video, it was taken down. Part of the debate focused on whether or not Google should have known about problems with the video or whether or not Google had actually been informed earlier -- but the only evidence that seemed to have been presented was that the comments on the video complained about the content. But it wasn't clear that anyone at Google had read the comments. Still, when the decision came out, it was just the decision -- not the full ruling by the judge, leading to some detailed legal guesses for the judge's reasoning.

However, it looks like the ruling has finally come out, and one Italian legal expert, after reading through it in detail, suggests the ruling was based on a pretty big legal interpretation error by the judge. The details are a bit complex, but basically, it seems the judge may have combined two separate parts of a law that were disconnected (and, the key part of the law wasn't even brought up in the case itself) to suggest that Google's big mistake was in not prominently telling users that they should not upload videos without the permission of everyone in the video. That information was in the Google Video's terms of service, but the judge felt that wasn't enough.

The problem is that the law doesn't actually say that Google had to make that information clear to users -- and, even if Google didn't satisfy that part of the law, not only was it not mentioned during the trial at all, it's also not connected to the part of the law Google was actually charged under:

The trouble with the ruling, said [Elvira] Berlingieri, is that Section 13 of the law was not mentioned in the case against the Google trio at all. One charge laid against them by prosecutors was to do with defamation, and that failed. The other was to do with privacy but that was based on a supposed data-processing violation of Section 167 of the law.

Section 167 of the Act says that anyone who breaches particular Sections of the Act with a view to gain or with intent to cause harm shall be punished by imprisonment of between six and 24 months. The Sections to which it refers, though, do not include Section 13.

"If you put together Section 13 and Section 167, that is how you get a sentence of six months," she said. "The problem is that Section 167 does not talk about Section 13. In the charge written by the prosecutors, Article 13 is never mentioned."

This definitely seems like good news for Google in its planned appeal.

Of course, even outside of the legal nuances of this, just from a common sense standpoint, this ruling is incredibly troubling. It's difficult to see how anyone (outside of those with logic deficiencies) could defend the ruling. The video itself was actually helpful in punishing the kids responsible. If Google had actually stopped the video from being uploaded, they would have gotten away with the bullying. On top of that, making the sanctions criminal against individuals seems way over the top, especially for individuals who had absolutely no knowledge of the video in question whatsoever. The whole thing seems ridiculous on any level.

Filed Under: criminal charges, eu, italy, liability, online video, privacy, youtube
Companies: google

Did Google Ignore A Takedown On The Italian Video?

from the making-things-a-bit-more-complex... dept

As the arguments continue over the Italian verdict convicting Google execs of criminal privacy violations for a video on Google Video, there is one interesting tidbit that's now coming out. One issue is that the judge has only released the verdict, not the full reasoning -- and that's leading to an awful lot of speculation. But now, Stefano has alerted us to reports claiming that Google had received an earlier takedown request which it had ignored. Throughout the case, Google had insisted that within hours of receiving a takedown notice from the police, it had complied. But, apparently, the prosecutors are claiming that there definitely was an earlier takedown.

So now we go back to our post from last week about the law, and whether or not Google had sufficient notification for a takedown. Part of the problem appears to be that current EU law does not clearly state the process for a valid takedown. In the US, at least, with the DMCA, the process for what counts as a valid takedown and how it needs to be delivered is extremely clear. And that way you can guarantee what is, and what is not, sufficient notice that requires a takedown. In this situation, where the law is not clear, you are left with a problem of interpreting what counts as sufficient notification.

But that brings us to the second issue: even if Google was notified, but somehow missed the notification, does that then mean that it makes sense to convict three totally unrelated executives of criminal charges? It still sounds like that would be a massive leap. At worst -- if we take as a given (and I'm not saying it's true, but for sake of argument, let's say it was true) that Google was sent a takedown notice which it ignored -- I would think that it would make sense to fine Google and require it to have a clear process for handling takedowns. To go beyond that and criminally charge and convict three totally unrelated execs because it took a second notice to get the video taken down seems pretty ridiculous.

Filed Under: criminal charges, eu, italy, liability, online video, privacy, youtube

Will Google's Italy Conviction Stick... Or Is The Problem In The Law?

from the common-sense-problem dept

Most of the discussion around the conviction of three Google execs on criminal charges over a video uploaded to Google video (which none of those execs had anything to do with), rightly focused on the assault on basic common sense that the result created. Convicting three executives as criminals for actions they had absolutely nothing to do with, and which concern events where the company acted expeditiously once it was officially informed of the issue, just violates every concept of fairness. It's hard to see how anyone can justify this sort of outcome (though, we've see a few people try).

However, a separate question is whether or not the ruling has a real legal basis. Given some of the reports we'd received from some lawyers in Italy, the feeling was that this was perfectly within the bounds of Italian law (and some were upset that we'd even question that). There is some uncertainty, however, as to how this fits within wider EU law, which Italy must also abide by. The Citizen Media Law Project has a post that details why they think that the conviction won't hold on appeal, suggesting that the judge misclassifed Google in determining whether or not the company qualified for EU-wide safe harbors for service providers.

However, there are some other possibilities as well. Struan Robertson has a detailed post, looking at EU safe harbors, which notes two reasons why Google may have lost the case. The first is that, despite EU safe harbors, there's actually a carve out for data privacy issues. Since the execs were acquitted on defamation issues, but still convicted on privacy violations, this might be correct. However, if that's the case, it highlights exactly why this loophole is both silly and dangerous. Yes, privacy is very important, but it's never going to make sense to put the liability for privacy violations on a third party directly. There's nothing wrong with focusing on potential lawbreaking by those who created or uploaded the video -- but blaming the platform used for hosting the video makes no sense at all.

The second area that Robertson highlights is the one that prosecutors had definitely brought up in the case: that Google did have "notice" of the offending nature of the video prior to the official alert from the police. The prosecutors argued that the comments on the video should have served to alert Google. Again, this seems a bit ridiculous -- given how many videos are uploaded every day, and how many comments are found on those videos.

However, these issues all point to problems with EU law that really should be fixed. First, the safe harbors need to be clearer, so that it's understood who or what is covered. Second, the "privacy" loophole needs to be closed. Yes, privacy is important, but nothing is so important that it should lead to jailing totally unrelated parties. Finally, the law needs to be much clearer on what constitutes official notice. As Robertson notes, there was a proposal made in the UK a little while back to clarify that very issue, and the politicians chose not to do so. When you leave the process open wide to interpretation like that, you get cases with nonsensical results, such as what happened in this case. Hopefully, Google wins on appeal, but in the meantime, Europe really should fix these problems with its current safe harbor laws.

Filed Under: criminal charges, eu, italy, liability, online video, privacy, youtube
Companies: google

Indiana Prosecutor Threatens Redbox With Criminal Charges If It Doesn't Remove R-Rated Movies

from the let-me-introduce-you-to-the-constitution dept

Brandon alerts us to the news that an Indiana prosecutor is threatening to bring criminal charges against Redbox execs if they don't remove R-rated videos from the kiosks. The claim, of course, is that this makes it easier for those under 17 to access those movies. Of course, that doesn't explain what's actually criminal about it. Indiana is among the handful of states that should know this -- seeing as politicians there tried to pass a law stopping retailers from selling "mature" video games to kids -- but every law of that nature has been thrown out. The current movie rating system is not, in fact, enforced by the government as that would be a restriction on free speech. Instead, it's a voluntary agreement within the movie industry. In other words, there is no legal issue with these kiosks.

And, of course, the true story behind this threat is found early on in the article. It has nothing to do with "protecting the children" at all. Instead, this is a bunch of independent video rental stores trying to shut down the competition:

"I'm not on a crusade," said Paul Black, an Evansville attorney who says he suggested the inquiry to Levco's office on behalf of a client who operates several video store locations. "We're just looking for a level playing field here."

That's not leveling the playing field. It's trying to block competition -- and doing so with bogus charges of criminal behavior.

Filed Under: criminal charges, dvds, free speech, indiana, kiosks, movies, r-rated
Companies: redbox

Incredible: Google Execs Found Guilty Because Of YouTube Video; Given Six Month Suspended Sentences

from the legal-world-gone-mad dept

This is just downright ridiculous. We see all sorts of jaw-dropping legal rulings around here, but I still can't fathom how Italian law allowed the following case to be decided in this manner. As you may recall, a couple years ago, Italian prosecutors filed criminal charges against four Google execs. What was the crime? Apparently, some kids had taunted another boy with Down's Syndrome, and filmed the whole episode. In the video, the kids apparently threw a tissue box at the boy. They then uploaded the video to YouTube, along with the countless other videos uploaded to the site. Nearly a year ago, YouTube noted that 20 hours of video are uploaded to the site every minute. To think that Google should automatically have knowledge of what's included in every video uploaded to YouTube is ludicrous.

But it's even more ridiculous when you realize the full story. Within hours of Google being alerted to the problems with the video, the video came down. In other words, the company acted promptly when questions about the video were raised. But, even more importantly, the video itself was used as evidence to punish the taunting teens. Now imagine if they hadn't been able to upload the video. Then the kids likely would have gotten away with the taunting, without anyone knowing about it. Why would you ever want to blame Google for providing a tool that allows stupid people to give proof of their own illegal activities? And even then, rather than filing a suit against Google the company, Italian prosecutors chose to file the lawsuit against four execs at the company, most of whom had nothing to do with the company's Italian operations.

You might think that a judge would toss this sort of lawsuit out really quickly, but that didn't happen, and now, amazingly, the court has found three of the four execs to be guilty and given them six month suspended jail sentences. I vaguely remember reading that "first time offenders" given prison sentences in Italy of three years or less get suspended sentences, so the suspended sentence part isn't surprising. But, of course, given how many videos are uploaded, it seems likely that there will be second, third and further offenses of this nature as well. It seems like Italy has just suggested Google block all access to YouTube, while also increasing the liability for pretty much any other company to operate there or have any foreign execs visit the country.

Honestly, I can't see how anyone would make a ruling in this manner and think that it makes sense. As I said when the case first came up, you would think that suing the execs of the company that made the tissue box would make more sense than suing Google's execs. Why not charge the execs of the company that made the camera that was used to film the incident? It's hard to hear about this ruling and not consider the Italian legal system to be a joke.

Filed Under: criminal charges, italy, liability, online video, youtube
Companies: google

Accidental Download Leading To Prison Sentence?

from the that's-a-problem dept

No one denies that child pornography is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. However, it often seems like the laws related to child pornography are targeted at the wrong thing. That's why we get laws requiring filters, rather than the shut down of whoever is producing the content, and laws against those who end up having any on their hard drive, even as that could make a felon out of someone just because they receive an email. Take, for example (as pointed out by Slashdot), this story of a man who was searching online for regular (legal) pornography, but accidentally downloaded some underage pictures -- which he immediately deleted. Though the FBI officials who eventually searched his hard drive admit that the images had been deleted and could not be accessed, he was still charged with child pornography and is pleading guilty to get a shorter sentence (3.5 years, 10 years probation, and a lifetime on the sex offenders list).

Though this article serves as a warning of why you shouldn't go looking for porn online -- it would seem that the stronger argument is why the laws on possession should change. In cases like this, where the guy was clearly not out there seeking out or collecting such content, it seems ridiculous that he should be charged and feel the need to plead guilty. Anti-child porn efforts should really focus on those who produces and distributes such content. As for those who collect it, I would assume that mental health help would be a more appropriate response than jail time. And, for those who accidentally come across it... it seems fairly ridiculous to charge them as well.

Filed Under: accidental downloading, criminal charges, prison

Will Spamford Wallace Finally Face Criminal Charges?

from the looking-that-way dept

If you've been around the tech world for a while, you should know the name Sanford Wallace -- better know as Spamford. He was one of the first big spammers in the 90s, and quite proud of it. After a variety of lawsuits, he claimed he had gone straight, and even opened a nightclub somewhere. But it wasn't long before he was back in the game, and accused of being in the spyware business by the FTC. In response... Wallace disappeared (even his lawyer couldn't find him), and he was eventually fined $4 million. Last year, MySpace sued Wallace (who, again didn't bother showing up) and won $234 million (which it will never see, of course).

Earlier this year, Facebook sued him for spamming Facebook as well -- and, par for the course, he didn't bother showing up at all... until Friday. Apparently he first declared bankruptcy on Thursday and showed up at the court hearing on Friday. The bankruptcy protects him against the unpaid fines for now... but, the hearing on Friday was about handing the case over to federal prosecutors, given the contempt for the law Wallace has shown to date. In other words, he can try to disappear again, but he may end up in prison, rather than just ducking out on the hundreds of millions of dollars he owes for spamming.

Filed Under: criminal charges, sanford wallace, spamford, spamming
Companies: facebook