Google execs convicted
In an update to an earlier article I posted, it appears that the Google executives in question have been convicted:
They were convicted for having failed to block the publication of a video showing some teenagers picking on and hitting another minor with Down's syndrome.
It will be interesting to see how Google reacts. Apparently, the court believes that Google is criminally responsible for videos its users happen to post, which means that they would, in theory, have to personally review every video submitted to determine whether they are going to be infringing on someone's rights because of its content?
Update:
Here's a New York Times link:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/24/business/AP-EU-Italy-GoogleTrial.html
Update 2:
"cate" posted a link to Google's official response: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/serious-threat-to-web-in-italy.html
Also, it's really incredible to read the comments here (in Italian): http://vitadigitale.corriere.it/2010/02/processo_vivi_down_google_cond.html
Most of them are against this ruling, but a significant number think it's a good thing, which just goes to show that you can't put all the blame on politicians for Italy's woes: someone is voting for them, after all.
Trackbacks
Use the following link to trackback from your own site:
http://journal.dedasys.com/trackbacks?article_id=2177
-
This post was mentioned on Twitter by planetdebian: David Welton: Google execs convicted: In an update to an earlier article I posted, it appears that the Google ex... http://bit.ly/9wDcEw
about 1 hour later:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/serious-threat-to-web-in-italy.html
about {{count}} hours later:
And what do you suggest as a solution? Or are you implying that we are supposed to feel sorry for poor Google because they just might have to pay a few someone's to moderate the videos they host.
about {{count}} hours later:
Google? How about anyone and everyone who accepts content from users. Google could probably afford to do so, most people can't. Were this sort of thing widely enacted, it would have a very, very negative effect on the internet.
about {{count}} hours later:
Something similar happened in Brazil. For a while, YouTube was blocked, under court order, on the country's major ISPs, because they failed to ban a video of a famous local female model caught on tape by a paparazzo nearly having sex on the beach. She sued Google; they would block an instance of the video but dozens of copies would keep popping back, until the local courts arrived at the brilliant decision of blocking YouTube for everyone.
about {{count}} hours later:
Italy's laws seem to be stricter than Singapore then, on bloggers ?
A private school in Singapore has been trying very hard to shut down a negative blog run by parents and ex-parents. Singapore defamation laws are strict, but the content must help too ! Perhaps this will fly better in Italy??
about {{count}} hours later:
google is playing innocent here (they neve do anything evil after all) but the position of the italian prosecutor was something like this: true that google removed the video as soon as the police told them to, but this only happened after a few week where that video was in the top video list of youtube italy. So the argument that google "did not know" the content of the video falled apart.
if you decide to host a site with "user provided content" you dont avoid automagically the responsibility of the content if you are the editor of the site; same happens if you write a newspaper with user provided content (e.g. readers letters to the editor), the editor of the newspaper in any legislation is liable if the publish something deemed "illegal".
the argument that you cant possibly police the user provided content on your site does not hold either, if you cant police the content, maybe you should not publish arbitrary user provided content after all...
about {{count}} hours later:
@someone : I think there are real issues with Google's increasing size and reach, but this has nothing to do with them. Were this ruling to stand, it basically means that, as you say, to merely have user content is to accept criminal liability for other people's actions.
I think your argument makes a lot of sense if you're looking at things from the point of view of an authoritarian state like China where those in power want to control what people read and hear as much as possible, but in the (more or less) free world, I think that it's important to give people the benefit of the doubt and err on the side of liberty.
If someone rents out an apartment, they aren't held responsible if a crime is committed in it because they failed to spy on the inhabitants. Beer companies aren't found guilty because people do stupid things when they drink too much. Car companies aren't liable if people drive unsafely and crash. Phone companies aren't held liable for someone attempting blackmail over a phone line. The executives of the post office aren't jailed if someone uses the mail to send a death threat. A reasonable standard is for people running sites with user content is to have things like 'flag' buttons, and to respond when an issue comes to their attention, rather than be forced to watch every second of every video, and read every comment from start to finish, lest something nasty slip through.
Letting this ruling stand would have a drastic and very unpleasant effect on user-driven sites.
Unless, of course, it becomes clear that it only really applies to Google, and only Google because it's simply a convenient way for the powers that be to put them in their place/wring some extra taxes out of them, which is not an entirely impossible theory.
about {{count}} hours later:
@David N. Welton: the point is whether showing a video on youtube is entirely and solely "someone else action" or it's also a google action (or facebook or anyone else for that matter).
In the case of a newspaper, if you send a letter to the "reader's corner" then the publisher is liable if the content of the letter is "illegal" (or racist or discriminatory).
The example of the apartment is not relevant. In that case, if people leaving in an apartment you own are let's say arrested for preparing a terrorist attack, I can assure you, you will be investigated. And you'd get away clear if you can show a formal transfer of responsibility to the tenant. If you just "let someone use your apartment" without a formal rent and so on, and it was used to prepare a terrorist attack, I would not bet on you still being around free.
The issue is, is youtube formally transfering the responsibility of the content to the uploader, let's say "renting" the hosting space? Difficult to say, but probably not... any man and his dog can upload on youtube with no control.
If what you say were legal, nothing would stop youtube to setup business in your country and then have someone in another country uploading anything they (and youtube) want to attract traffic with no liability whatsoever. Is that what you want?
about {{count}} hours later:
@someone: Google certainly has a responsibility to act when they are made aware that something is unacceptable. However, to be criminally responsible for any and all content is essentially to force people to disallow user content.
Do you have a blog? A web site of some kind? What if I write a comment slandering somoene - you should go to jail for it? What if I write it in Italian? Farsi? Chinese? Thai? You should be forced to know exactly what it says and remove it before it even gets posted and viewed or risk going to jail for it? That's an absurd standard to hold people to, and it is inimical to the freedom which many of us users of the internet hold quite dearly.
What I say is legal in most of the western world: web sites are not criminally liable for things posted by their users, as long as they make a reasonable effort to remove them when they are made aware of their presence.
about {{count}} hours later:
it's fine to disagree, but I cant help to comment on your last sentence: google cant claim they did not know about the nature and the content of that video. It stayed for weeks in their top video list and it attracted a lot of users and, I guess it generated advertising revenue for them.
Google cant claim they were not aware of the "inappropriate" or "unlawful" nature of that video. They closed a blind eye and pocketed the benefit.
And again, if you publish a newspaper, would you be happy to publish a letter from one of your readers in a language you dont understand?
Chi e' causa del suo male pianga se stesso.
about {{count}} hours later:
Actually, with services as automated as Google's, it's entirely possible that they did not know anything about the video in question until it was brought to their attention, when they promptly removed it. Since advertisements on videos are relatively new, it's unlikely they got much, if any, revenue from it, either. Consider that Google didn't even finish acquiring Youtube until after the video was taken down. Did Youtube even have an official presence in Italy, or people working on an Italian version of the site at the time? I think that without seeing revenue numbers, suggesting that they left it up to make money is a bit of a stretch, at best.
The point still stands: it is absurd to make people criminally responsible (we're not talking about monetary damages, but sending people to jail) for not scrutinizing every single piece of content that goes through their sites. Paradoxically, large corporations like Google would be the best placed in terms of money, time and resources to be able to vet content in a variety of languages and formats, whereas small web site operators operating forums and things of that ilk on a volunteer basis would be the least equipped to censor their users. In any case, the extra costs to remove a tiny fraction of content would have to be passed on to consumers in some way, which would lead to a more unpleasant experience for everyone, or, should the costs prove too great, no service at all, which would be unfortunate for the millions of people who enjoy sites with user generated content.
Youtube is clearly quite different from a newspaper; one needn't be an internet expert to spot the differences.
{{count}} days later:
I don't think they should be responsible, YouTube is such a big video site now, it's impossible to review all the videos on there.
{{count}} days later:
Apparently, there are something like 20 hours of video uploaded every minute:
http://www.youtube.com/t/fact_sheet