Italian Court Realizes That Yahoo Isn't Liable For Infringing Works Found Via Its Search Engine

from the secondary-liability dept

Qûr Tharkasdóttir alerts us to the news that an earlier court ruling in Italy, that placed liability on Yahoo for not magically knowing how to block all links that might lead to certain infringing material, has been overturned. Apparently, the higher court realized that applying such third party liability was crazy (Google translation from the original Italian. The translation is a bit funky, but it seems clear that the court recognized the basic problems of telling Yahoo it must automatically block all links that might lead to infringing movies based solely on the title of that movie. Chalk one up for common sense... though it's a shame it had to wait until an appeal to get the ruling right.

Filed Under: copyright, italy, liability, yahoo

Seismologists Tried For Manslaughter Due To Earthquake

from the legal-insanity dept

Capitalist Lion Tamer points us to a story that sounds like it should be in The Onion. However, it appears to be real that some Italian seismologists are being tried for manslaughter due to an earthquake that they failed to predict. The key was that apparently some of the seismologists had suggested that seismic activity in the area wasn't likely to lead to an earthquake... which turned out to be wrong:

At the time of the 31 March 2009 meeting, seismic activity had been going on in the area for more than three months, causing alarm in the population. De Bernardinis summoned the meeting and asked the scientists to assess the risk of a major earthquake and its possible consequences. The meeting was followed by a press conference by De Bernardinis and Barberi, where the two reassured the population that the seismic sequence did not necessarily hint at a major earthquake. De Bernardinis, in particular, appeared on television saying that “the scientific community tells me there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable”. A major earthquake did hit on April 6 though, killing 309 people. In the aftermath, many citizens quoted those statements as the reason they did not take precautionary measures, such as fleeing their homes. According to the accusation, many people who would otherwise leave the area decided to stay, and were eventually killed in the collapse of their houses.

That seems crazy, but the judge refused to dismiss the case, and it will apparently start this fall. What's next? Will someone sue the weatherman for being wrong?

Filed Under: earthquake, italy, manslaughter, seismologists

Italian Court Says Yahoo Is Liable For People Finding Infringing Movie Via Its Search

from the secondary-liability dept

Slashdot points us to the details of a recent ruling in Italy that found Yahoo contributory liable for its search pointing people to an unauthorized download of a film. The details of the case seem a bit more nuanced than the short summary. Google and Microsoft were also sued... but reasonably dismissed from the case, since their Italian divisions had nothing to do with their search engines. Yahoo, however, apparently does do some search work in Italy.

As for the reasoning behind the decision, it seems to focus on a stretch of an interpretation of the EU's E-Commerce Directive, which indicates that a "caching provider" has to block links to content once notified that it's infringing. While the coverage is a bit unclear, it sounds like this is more difficult than a US-style DMCA notice-and-takedown regime, in that it appears that upon notice that some content is infringing, Yahoo isn't supposed to just take down that particular link, but all links that can reach that content. In fact, the explanation notes that Yahoo can't even link to another (legal) website that contains links itself to infringing works. Think about that for a second. It goes beyond secondary liability to something entirely different. I'd call it "head in the sand" liability, where someone seems to hope that by telling search engines they can't link to sites that might link to infringing works, it will somehow make those works hard to find. The reality, of course, is that it's just going to frustrate consumers, because search engines now have incentive to take down all sorts of perfectly legitimate search results to avoid liability. Given this and the ruling that found Google execs criminally liable, one wonders why any search engine operates in Italy at all these days...

Filed Under: italy, liability, links, search, secondary liability
Companies: yahoo

Google Found Liable For Autocomplete Suggestions In Italy

from the oh-come-on dept

Here's yet another ridiculously bad ruling for search engines in Italy. Glyn Moody points us to the news of a blog post by a lawyer involved in the case (against Google) who is happy that his side prevailed and that Google is liable for search autocomplete suggestions. The case involved someone who was upset that doing a Google search on his name popped up "con man" ("truffatore") and "fraud" ("truffa") as autocomplete Google search suggestions. We've seen similar cases elsewhere, and France has (most of the time) also ruled against Google.

Of course, this is ridiculous for a variety of reasons. Google is not "creating" this content. It's accurately suggesting results based on what users are searching. Clearly, people are searching on this particular individual along with the two terms. That's not Google's fault. Yet Google is liable for it?

One interesting footnote: a part of the reason why the court ruled the way it did was because the court noted that Google already edited autocomplete suggestions for issues related to copyright infringement. Funny. That's exactly the issue we warned about when Google made the silly decision (following pressure from the US government) to start blocking certain keywords from autocomplete. The court seems to see this as proof that Google can and should be responsible for the content in that autocomplete box... Once again, it looks like the company would have been better off not meddling.

Filed Under: autocomplete, defamation, italy, liability, search
Companies: google

Time For Google To Leave Italy? Italy Announces That YouTube Responsible For All Content

from the it's-not-tv dept

Not this again. The Italian government has long had trouble comprehending how YouTube is simply a platform for users. Of course, some might say this is willful ignorance. Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owns Italy's largest private broadcaster, Mediaset, and doesn't much like the competition. In fact, back in 2008, Mediaset sued Google over its content appearing on YouTube, and a year ago, an Italian court (surprise, surprise) sided with Berlusconi and ordered YouTube to remove all Mediaset content, though it doesn't explain how YouTube is to know what is and what is not infringing. Of course, this is also the same country where a politician wanted to sue thousands of YouTube commenters for making fun of him under a video on YouTube. And, most famously, Italy is the country that bizarrely and inconceivably found Google execs criminally liable for a video posted to Google Video.

The latest in the Italian government's war against YouTube is that it's declared that YouTube qualifies as a TV station and is subject to television regulations (Google translation of the original Italian, found via Slashdot). What this means is that not only will YouTube/Google have to pay a tax as a TV broadcaster, but it now has other regulatory controls, including an obligation to publish "corrections" within 48 hours to anyone who claims they were slandered, and an obligation to not broadcast "inappropriate" content during times when children might watch.

But, of course, the biggest issue is that it says that if there's any editiorial control, even automated (so I assume the "favorites" or "recommended" lists count), suddenly, YouTube becomes liable for all of the content. In other words, in order to help Berlusconi win his lawsuit against YouTube, Italian politicians have effectively changed the law to make sure that YouTube is now liable for the content of third party users. This effectively means that the risk of running such a platform in Italy becomes ridiculously high. I imagine Google will fight this in the courts, but at some point, it makes you wonder if Google wouldn't just be better off leaving Italy altogether, and seeing how folks there feel about its government's decisions.

Filed Under: italy, regulations, third party liability, youtube
Companies: google, mediaset, youtube

Leaked Cable Shows That ACTA Secrecy Is Way Beyond Normal

from the didn't-we-say-that? dept

As more and more attention was paid to the ridiculous level of secrecy concerning the ACTA negotiators last year, a bunch of ACTA supporters tried to claim that the level of secrecy (such as calling it a state secret involving national security) was perfectly normal for such agreements. A year ago, we went through a rather detailed explanation of how similar negotiations were much more open. The response we heard was that we were wrong and that this was "entirely normal." Turns out, even the diplomats involved knew this was bunk. One of the latest cable leaks from Wikileaks shows an Italian diplomat complaining to a US official about the level of secrecy involved in ACTA, noting that it's much higher than normal and that it makes it more difficult to get stuff done:

The level of confidentiality in these ACTA negotiations has been set at a higher level than is customary for non-security agreements. According to Mazza, it is impossible for member states to conduct necessary consultations with IPR stakeholders and legislatures under this level of confidentiality.

Can't wait to see defenders of ACTA secrecy try to backtrack their claims that the secrecy level was perfectly normal.

Separately, this particular cable shows some of the problems with the USTR's annual Special 301 report in which it makes up a list of who's been naughty and who's been nice when it comes to intellectual property issues -- based not on evidence, but almost entirely on entertainment industry and pharma industry say so. The Italian official complained to the US that Italy had been working hard to crack down on infringement in Italy, but the USTR slammed them anyway and made no mention of all of the efforts they'd already put towards pushing through changes that Hollywood (via the State Department) was demanding. The Italian official was worried that this would actually lead to a setback, as Italian government officials wondered why they should bother if the USTR was just going to slam them no matter what they did.

Of course, none of this is a surprise. The same points about both the Special 301 process and ACTA secrecy were made by many folks, including us at Techdirt, and every time we did, supporters mocked us for "crying wolf" and making stuff up. Yet, now, it turns out that the points many folks were raising were also being stated by government officials.

Filed Under: acta, italy, secrecy, sweden, wikileaks
Companies: wikileaks

Italy Demands Apple Remove Joke iTunes App; Starts Legal Action Against App Author

from the humor-sensors? dept

btr1701 passes on the news of how Italy's tourism minister apparently has absolutely no sense of humor. There's an app in the Apple iTunes store for iPhones and iPads called "What Country," which summarizes every country in quick stereotypical snippets. It's meant to be amusing. For example:

Britain is characterised by "tea, weird sense of humour, football hooligans and rain", while Germany is summed up with "beer, discipline and autobahns". China is reduced to "overpopulation, kung fu, Great Wall, Tibet and tea ceremony", while the most defining characteristics of the US are "melting pot, hamburger and the American dream".

As for Italy, well, it's summarized as "pizza, the Mafia and scooters." And, apparently, Italy's tourism minister, Michela Vittoria Brambilla, has such a lack of humor that she declared the app "offensive and unacceptable," demanded that Apple remove it from the store and (most ridiculous of all) is asking the state's attorney to take legal action against the author. Apparently, someone thinks it's illegal in Italy to make a joke about Italy.

Filed Under: apps, italy, jokes, liability, mafia, pizza, scooters
Companies: apple

Italian Officials Charged For Corruption In Red Light Camera Deal

from the all-done-to-bump-up-revenue dept

Over and over again we've seen cases where cities clearly put in red light cameras not for safety purposes (despite that being the "official" reason), but to increase revenue. For example, many cities have been caught decreasing the time of the yellow light before it turns red -- a move that definitely increases accidents and puts people at risk, against the law. However, since it increases the number of cars that run red lights, it means more revenue. If this all seems very corrupt, it appears that in at least some places, that corruption might be explicit. Reader Murdock points us to the news that 38 public officials in Italy may face charges for accepting kickbacks and bribes in association with a redlight camera company, to install such cameras, decrease the timing on yellow lights, and then collect money. Oh, and it worked. Lots of money was made, but it's not clear that anyone was any safer.

Filed Under: corruption, italy, red light cameras

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

Lessig Gives A Well-Timed Speech To The Italian Parliament On Internet Freedom

from the internet-is-freedom dept

We have noted, recently, that Italian laws and politicians seem to have a somewhat troubling view of the internet, where they are quick to blame the internet for anything bad that happens, and then look to pass laws that would throw out plenty of good just to protect against the possibility of any bad happening. This, of course, culminated just recently in the ruling in an Italian court that three Google execs were guilty of criminal violations, over a Google-hosted video.

Given all that, it's quite interesting timing to see that Larry Lessig just gave a speech to the Italian Parliament about how Internet is Freedom. You can see it below (assuming YouTube doesn't take it down) and it runs a little over half an hour: He does not address that particular case (or, actually, any of the stories coming out of Italy concerning the internet). However, he does an excellent job setting up the issues related to regulating the internet -- detailing how there is a generational divide going on here, and how the digital generation is effectively "waiting for the dinosaurs to die off," but are still worried about the damage they might do in the meantime. And, with that, he suggests a rather gentle touch when it comes to regulations -- a "regulatory humility."

Not surprisingly, there's plenty in the video that I agree with -- but also plenty that I disagree with. While he does a great job highlighting three areas (copyright, journalism and transparency), where the internet does both good and bad, I disagree with his suggestions for "minimizing the bad." I do agree that we should always look to see if there are ways to minimize the "bad," but I'm not sure I agree with what he considers to actually be "harm" in all three of those cases. What he calls "harm," looks to me an awful lot like disruption. And you can't minimize disruption (at least not successfully).

Still, it is a worthwhile video to watch, with especially interesting timing and audience, given all that's been happening in Italy lately. It would be nice to know how the audience reacted and responded to the speech as well.

Filed Under: freedom, internet, italy, larry lessig