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

Hulu Loses The Daily Show And Colbert

from the building-community dept

For a while now Comedy Central's two most popular shows, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report have been available for streaming online on both Hulu and on the Comedy Central websites for each program. I'd always wondered why Viacom had allowed those two shows on Hulu, seeing as Hulu is basically owned by Viacom's competitors -- and those two shows are some of the most popular on Hulu. Over those two years, though, Viacom has also built up its own online sites -- actually building some (weak, but still some) aspects of community around both sites. Apparently, it realized it had all the leverage, and Hulu wasn't willing to pony up. So Viacom is pulling both shows from Hulu next week. This is a pretty big loss for Hulu, though the company is trying to shrug it off. But it does suggest yet another potential problem with Hulu's business model. For all the crap we give Viacom over things like its YouTube lawsuit, the company has worked hard to try to build community around these particular shows -- but other shows that are relying on Hulu can't do that as easily.

Filed Under: colbert, daily show, jon stewart, online video, stephen colbert
Companies: hulu, viacom

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

The Trouble With Hulu... Too Many Competing Interests

from the gonna-kill-it dept

Nearly a year ago, we questioned whether or not Hulu could survive. It's not that we don't think the product is well done or well liked. Other than the annoying regional restrictions which pisses off lots of people, the overall service is quite nice. The problem is that there are just way too many conflicts to deal with. The company is owned, in large part, by the networks, and that's leading to all sorts of pressure and complaints about how ads are sold and whether or not there should be a subscription service. From what I've heard, the folks at Hulu understand quite well how an internet-age company should act. The company's rather honest explanation for its fight with Boxee certainly suggested the problem was at a different level than with Hulu management. But... with Hulu having most of its ownership from legacy industries, combined with having so many different players involved in the ownership, it shouldn't come as a surprise at all that the company is now coming under pressure to do things (subscriptions, limits, etc.) that will certainly kill off whatever good has been done. And, since some of the pressure is actually coming from the cable guys as well (who view Hulu as a huge threat), this will only get worse if, as is widely expected, Comcast completes its purchase of NBC Universal.

Filed Under: online video
Companies: hulu

Comcast And Time Warner Team Up To Control What TV You Watch Online

from the consumers-anyone? dept

There's certainly been plenty of talk lately about how efforts like Hulu to move television shows online could undermine the television industry as people start to realize that they don't need to pay gobs of money to a monopoly cable provider (other than maybe for broadband). The TV content folks believe this is a problem as well, because the cable companies currently pay them corporate-sized gobs of money for the rights to offer their channels to end customers. This leads to regular fights between cable companies and content providers -- but neither really want to see that old system go away. The cable companies want end users to keep paying monopoly-inflated gobs of money, and the content creators want that hefty check from the cable companies.

So, it was no surprise back in February to hear of plans to make agreements between cable companies and content providers that would limit what kind of video you could watch online, requiring you to be a cable company subscriber and "authenticating" what you could watch. Thus, it should be no surprise that Comcast and Time Warner are now announcing exactly that.

This should raise all sorts of antitrust concerns. First, you've got industry execs working together to limit consumer choice, and these industry execs already have quasi-monopolies in certain regions. And they're doing this to keep prices high against competition from the internet. Doesn't that seem like a problem?

The real issue, of course, is that the equation is (as it so often is with such companies) backwards. Rather than embracing what the internet allows these companies to do, they're trying to remove that ability, and make it act like good old television, with those good old revenue streams -- and, amusingly, claim it's "the future of television." Not even close. It's television's past, with an attempt to move it to the internet without any real advantages. As Om Malik points out in the link above: "The deal makes it painfully obvious that everything cable companies do... is done to save their video franchises." It's not about looking forward. It's about preserving the past.

Filed Under: cable companies, online video
Companies: comcast, time warner cable

Bell Canada Shuts Down Crappy Video Store That No One Used... But It's Still Throttling

from the well-look-at-that dept

Just about a year ago, we pointed out that Bell Canada was facing scrutiny for its decision to force traffic shaping on all of its resellers, often without letting them know... and yet, at nearly the same time, it launched its own crappy online video store. The whole thing seemed odd. First, Bell claimed it needed to shape traffic to deal with congestion... but then it had no problem launching its own video store that would have no traffic shaping. That certainly seems like anticompetitive behavior. Yet, as we pointed out at the time, it was difficult to believe that the Bell online video store would get any usage at all. It had an extremely limited selection, high prices and buggy Microsoft DRM. What a bargain?

Apparently, it took all of a year for Bell Canada to realize that it wasn't getting any use whatsoever, and Joe McEnaney points out that Bell Canada has quietly shut down the site... though, it's still throttling traffic from resellers. Maybe, next time, instead of trying to limit competitors and offer something crappy, Bell could spend its resources investing in bandwidth. That would have made everyone a lot happier.

Filed Under: canada, online video, throttling
Companies: bell canada

NBC's Zucker Still Seems Like He's Feeling Around In The Dark

from the still-getting-used-to-this-whole-internet-thing dept

It's hard to know where to start with this story on an interview with NBC head honcho Jeff Zucker from the D conference this week. He makes a few comments about replacing "analog dollars with digital pennies", saying he thinks they're now up to dimes, but his comments overall still don't create much of an impression that he understands the fundamental changes needed to his company's business any better today than he did a couple years back. For instance, he talks about the high cost of producing network TV, and how it's made it impossible to "sustain just average programming." Is that such a bad thing? Perhaps too much "just average programming" has led NBC to its current #3 spot among TV networks. To this point, he says that a show like Seinfeld, which didn't perform all that well in its initial four episodes, wouldn't survive today. But whose fault is that? It's hard to see how it's anybody but the networks'. If they can't do a better job of determining which shows will be hits, or crafting popular shows, that certainly seems to be their own problem. Taken in whole, the comments largely seem to smack of the same old "the world is changing... which means there's a problem with the world, not with our business" thinking that dominates old media. While NBC's Hulu is an early success, it doesn't mean the company fully grasps the change needed. For instance, if finding new hits is such a problem, why not leverage the online presence to test and build new shows? Or here's a novel thought: Hulu's a popular site, so why not test shows there before putting them on the broadcast network?

Filed Under: content, jeffrey zucker, online video
Companies: nbc universal

Are Free Bandwidth And Distribution Bad? Ask Susan Boyle

from the oh,-they're-not-getting-paid? dept

Five years ago, if there was a show called Britain's Got Talent (it only showed up two years ago), and it had a sensation like Susan Boyle, it would have had a hard time putting it online. It could have signed up with an expensive hosting service to stream the video, but also would have needed to make a choice about what technology to use (RealMedia? Quicktime?), which would have made it difficult for many people to actually watch it. The bandwidth costs of having people download or stream the video would have been quite high as well. Chances are, they wouldn't have bothered. It just would be way too expensive, with too little a response. Yet, now, thanks to YouTube, they can do it entirely for free. That's amazing. Susan Boyle is an international sensation thanks to YouTube. Without YouTube, she would have been a local UK sensation at best.

But, you have folks at the NY Times who seem to think that it's a bad thing, because the producers of the TV show aren't making any advertising revenue from the clip being on YouTube. No, but they've created a huge singing sensation that is getting attention from millions of people. If they can't figure out how to make money off of that in the long run, they don't deserve to be in business. However, it still amazes me that anyone thinks that because a video is up on YouTube but not making money, it's somehow a bad thing. The producers of the show are getting free technology, a free community of watchers, free bandwidth and free promotions that wouldn't have been possible just a few years ago. And this isn't enough?

Filed Under: free bandwidth, free promotion, online video, susan boyle

NBC Universal's Great Idea: Let's Make It Harder And More Expensive To Watch The Olympics

from the this-is-a-joke,-right? dept

During the last Olympics, we sat stunned as NBC Universal made mistake after mistake after mistake in making it incredibly difficult for fans who wanted to watch the Olympics online to do so. And then, NBC Universal executives bragged about how difficult they made it to watch, when really they just shot themselves in the foot, since even the audience who could actually watch it online watched it more on TV. In other words, everything about NBC Universal's strategy backfired... and then they talked about how great it worked. It's hard to understand how the folks involved still have jobs.

But... rather than learn from that, it looks like NBC Universal has decided to make things even worse for the next Olympics. NewTeeVee points us to the news that NBC Universal is working on a deal that will require online viewers to first prove they have a pay TV package before granting them the ability to watch buggy, limited, delayed online video of the event. Oh, and of course, this will only apply to the cable or satellite providers who first pay NBC Universal for the privilege. How a viewer will "prove" he or she is a customer is still being decided, but will likely involve an IP address if you're at home, or some other convoluted system if you're elsewhere.

This really is just an extension of the ongoing discussions between the networks and cable/satellite TV providers to lock up their content behind a paywall before online video wipes away the need for pay TV. It's like watching a trainwreck way in advance. Any attempt to limit what can be done for the sake of keeping an old business model in place has always failed miserably. It's always disappointing to see people who should know better make the same mistake over and over and over again.

Filed Under: difficulty, olympics, online video
Companies: nbc universal

Is It Impossible For Hulu To Survive?

from the too-many-competing-interests dept

We've pointed out in the past that you don't compete against piracy by being lame, and you have to give Hulu at least some kudus for doing its best early on not to be lame (despite plenty of expectations to the contrary). However, every time we've mentioned Hulu around here, we've noticed an awful lot of pissed off comments from users, who complain about too many advertisements or the ridiculous location restrictions (or music restrictions) that Hulu has to put on content at the request of content owners. And, now, with the removal of Hulu content from Boxee, some are beginning to question whether or not Hulu is driving people back to unauthorized options for TV content.

The real question, however, may be whether or not it was ever possible for Hulu to really succeed. This isn't to knock the team at Hulu, who have actually gone beyond most expectations in delivering what they could, with a definite focus on usability and making the service as reasonable and useful as possible. But, with so many competing interests tugging them in every direction, it's nearly impossible for the company to actually satisfy the content providers and viewers at the same time. We've seen it over and over again -- with content providers having totally unrealistic expectations of what sort of limitations need to be placed on their content -- not realizing that whether they like it or not, there are other options out there. Hulu did a pretty good job "competing" with those free options, but as content providers get more and more assertive with their demands for limitations, it seems likely that the company is going to find it more and more difficult to compete against better, more engaging and less annoying (if illegal) competing sites. You don't compete against free by being lame. Hulu seems to recognize that -- but Hulu's content providers still haven't gotten the message.

Filed Under: content providers, online video, technology providers, tv
Companies: hulu