Columnist Claims Italy's Google Verdict Makes Sense

from the someone-edited-that? dept

Ted Rall is a columnist/cartoonist, who, a couple years ago, wrote one of the most ridiculous opinion pieces we've seen in a long time -- suggesting that the answer to newspapers' current economic woes is that they should all take their websites down. That column was so full of economic and legal ignorance I thought there was a good chance that it was actually satire -- but people insisted he was serious. Now reader Mandy alerts us to a new column from Rall that again is so devoid of basic logic that I wonder if it's satire. This time he's standing way out on a limb arguing that Italy got it right in finding three Google execs criminally liable for a video some kids posted to Google Video.

Rall's reasoning once again defies logic. He seems unable to comprehend the difference between a publisher and a tool or service provider. Instead, he just insists that Google (and any other online service provider) should be forced to carefully review and fact check every piece of content uploaded before it can be available. Apparently, he doesn't quite recognize what he's asking for. On YouTube alone, more than 20 hours of video are uploaded every minute. And that's just YouTube. Rall also suggests that every blog post, every Tweet and every Facebook message should first be reviewed by an editor before it can be posted.

I think this really goes back to Rall's previous clueless column. He can't stand competition, so his solution is to put in place ridiculous free speech destroying rules and regulations to effectively kill off the internet, because someone might misuse it. His argument is based on the scenario that what if he ran a story falsely accusing you of being a drug-addicted child pornographer. He claims -- falsely -- that if he just published it online, there's nothing you can do about it. He later admits he's lying by saying you could sue him, but he brushes that off by saying no one would sue him because he has no money. Of course, people sue for libel all the time -- even those with no money.

But the really scary thing is that Rall seems to think that basically destroying the freedom to communicate and to express yourself online makes sense, just because the tool might possibly be used to spread a false statement. Does he not recognize the unintended consequences of this? Does he not realize that his "suggestion" for fixing the internet is effectively how much of China's internet censorship program works? Does he not think there might be more effective ways of dealing with such situations? For example, if Rall were to falsely accuse you of being a drug-addicted child pornographer, and it's clearly bogus, then you have an opportunity to fight back, and point out that Rall is wrong, destroy his reputation, and make sure he never gets another job again. Why not let free speech combat free speech?

Instead, Rall seems terrified of free speech, and would prefer that it only come from the "professionals" like himself.

Filed Under: communication, editors, filters, free speech, italy, ted rall
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

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

Italian Pirate Bay Block Leads To Massive Traffic Boost For Competing Torrent Sites

from the whac-a-mole dept

A decade into the entertainment industry's massive game of whac-a-mole when it comes to file sharing sites, you would think that people would realize that blocking or banning any particular site doesn't do a damn thing to slow the pace of file sharing around the globe. Instead, it does two things: (1) informs more people of the social norm of unauthorized file trading and (2) causes people to scatter to more sites, usually further underground and even more difficult to identify and stop. And, indeed, that appears to be the case in Italy. You may recall that the Italian Supreme Court recently decided that it was okay for a lower court to block The Pirate Bay (the lower court is now deciding what to do), but in response, it appears that users have already figured out how to scatter to other sites, as many other torrent sites have seen an influx of Italian users. Another mole whacked, and yet, more keep popping up. It's difficult to see how this is a particularly good strategic policy.

Filed Under: bittorrent, italy, pirate bay, traffic
Companies: the pirate bay

Italy Blocks The Pirate Bay Yet Again

from the the-stick-your-head-in-the-sand-approach dept

Well, here we go again. A year and a half ago, an Italian court ordered ISPs to start blocking access to The Pirate Bay. Oddly (and inexplicably) many ISPs redirected all such traffic to a website owned by the IFPI, which seemed highly questionable. Why should a private entity receive that traffic? Either way, it didn't do much good, as the block only drew more attention to The Pirate Bay, leading more visitors to reach the site from Italy than before the block! Not long after that, a court struck down the ban as being unreasonable.

But, of course, this is the entertainment industry we're talking about, and if the courts save it from shooting itself in the foot, it will just keep shooting. So, once again, it is going to get The Pirate Bay a lot more attention by getting a court to require the site be blocked again. Basically, the original ruling saying that Italy couldn't ban foreign sites was overturned by the Italian Supreme Court, and thus, the lower court went back and decided, again, that the site should be blocked.

What I really wonder is if anyone actually thinks this will make a difference?

Filed Under: block, isps, italy
Companies: the pirate bay

Proposal In Italy Would Require Gov't Authorization To Upload Any Video

from the media-controls dept

Over the last few years we've noticed a troubling trend for Italian politicians to push absolutely ridiculous anti-internet policies. Some have claimed that much of this comes from the fact that current Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi owns a lot of the mainstream media outlets in the country, and the lack of control over the internet bothers him and his party -- which could explain why they use almost any opportunity to lash out at the internet. To make matters worse, there seems to be particular confusion over things like YouTube, leading to the ongoing lawsuit that could sentence Google execs to jailtime for not removing a video fast enough (Google took the video down within a couple hours of being alerted to it). Then there's the politician who tried to file lawsuits against thousands of YouTube commenters.

So perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise that politicians in Italy are proposing that all web video in the country must first be authorized by the Communications Ministry (found via Slashdot). Officially, Italian officials say that they're just implementing an EU directive on how to deal with product placement, but others note that this clearly goes way beyond that, with many seeing Berlusconi trying to stomp out online video competition to his media holdings.

Filed Under: free speech, gov't approval, italy, liability, uploads, videos

Italian Courts Continue To Attack YouTube; Demand It Remove All Content From Berlusconi-Owned Mediaset

from the and-how-will-that-work? dept

It seems that the Italian legal system really has problems with YouTube. We've already detailed the absolutely ridiculous criminal lawsuit against Google execs over a video of some kids taunting another kid (why Google execs are criminally responsible for this still remains unexplained). Then there's the Italian politician who has tried to sue a bunch of YouTube commenters. And now comes the news (via Michael Scott) that a court has ordered YouTube to remove all content from Mediaset, an Italian broadcaster owned (of course) by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. It's unclear how the court thinks YouTube can somehow figure out what content is from Mediaset, but it doesn't appear that Italian law cares about such practicalities.

Filed Under: copyright, italy, silvio berlusconi, youtube
Companies: google, mediaset

Italian Politician Blames Facebook For Berlusconi Attack; Facebook Begins Self-Censorship

from the well-that's-nice dept

By now you've probably heard that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was attacked with a statue last weekend. Apparently, his political friends have decided that Facebook and Twitter are to blame for this, and they're now considering laws to crack down (even more than already) on what is allowed on such sites. Perhaps aware of how Italian prosecutors are still pushing forward with criminal charges against Google execs over a single video on YouTube posted by some kids, Facebook apparently was quick to respond that it will happily monitor and censor content on the social networking site that relates to Berlusconi.

As the CSMonitor article points out, Berlusconi owns a significant portion of the media business in Italy, and the internet is often viewed as a problem because he hasn't been able to control it. Thus, this may just be another political move to try to gain more control over dissenting voices online -- and it's a shame that Facebook would so easily play along. Update: The politician in question has apparently clarified his remarks to say that there is no plan to introduce new internet legislation. Really. Of course, one could easily interpret the original statement as a trial balloon -- and the resulting outrage leading to the "clarification."

Filed Under: control, free speech, italy, silvio berlusconi, social networks
Companies: facebook

Italian Prosecutors Assume Google Execs Read All YouTube Comments; Demands Jailtime Over Video

from the common-sense-failure dept

We've been absolutely stunned by the Italian attempt to prosecute Google execs over a YouTube video. If you don't recall the story, apparently some schoolboys taunted a disabled boy by throwing a tissue box at him. They filmed the entire ordeal and posted it to YouTube. Because of the video, the kids in the video were actually held liable for the taunting. It actually helped bring those kids to justice. Meanwhile, Google took down the video as soon as they were alerted to it by the authorities (within a couple hours of finding out about it). But Italian prosecutors insist not only that Google should have blocked the video entirely, but the fact that they left it up means that its execs are guilty of criminal violations and deserve jailtime.

In pressing the case forward, prosecutors are claiming that Google must have known about the nature of the video because there were comments on the YouTube video expressing disgust over the video. It's as if they believe that Google execs read all the comments posted to YouTube and use those to pick and choose which videos should stay up and which should be taken down.

In the meantime, I'm still wondering why Italian prosecutors are not trying to push the tissue manufacturer in jail as well, as I would argue that those who made the package of tissues thrown at the boy are at least as, if not more, responsible for the actions of those kids as Google.

Filed Under: comments, criminal, italy, liability, videos, youtube
Companies: google, youtube