Google Italy Execs Convicted Over YouTube Bullying Video

FTWinston writes "Three Italian Google executives have been convicted of privacy violations in Italy over the contents of a YouTube video showing a boy with Downs syndrome being bullied — despite the fact that the video was removed as soon as it was brought to their attention, and that Google assisted the authorities in locating those who posted it. Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online. Quite how they were meant to achieve this is another matter." Google has responded by saying this is a Serious threat to the web.

Comments

Great big targets

[ItsColdOverHere]

So Italy has basically painted a great big target on every single operator of social media.
Apparently if an Italian moderator or admin ticks me off I can simply upload some offending bit of data and call the cops...

Re:Great big targets

[RMH101]

that's it: Berlusconi doesn't like that people can post videos of him getting hit with model cathedrals, so he's classing anyone who uploads video to the internet as a broadcaster subject to government regulation.

Re:Great big targets

[bickerdyke]

Small correction:

He doesn't like ANYONE publishing ANY KIND of video. TV station owner, competition, wink wink nudge nudge

What?!?

[AllyGreen]

Thats a fucking witch hunt, what the heck else could google have done??

Re:What?!?

[natehoy]

So one person in their customer base posts an objectionable video, they are informed about that video and remove it immediately, they assist the local police in finding who posted the video, and you think their behavior is deserving of criminal charges?

Man, I hope for your sake you never run a phone company in Italy. Imagine being held criminally liable every time one of your customers calls in a bomb threat to someone. Or the post office. Imagine the postmaster general being arrested and tried for murder each time a bomb is successfully mailed in the country.

What do you expect? Someone at Google has to watch and individually approve each and every video ever posted? How is that respecting the rights of the individual? Not only is it impractically expensive, it would be violating the right to free speech that many countries allow.

If Italy has their togas in a twist over people posting videos to public sites, the Italian government should pay for banks of censors and filter videos themselves.

Giving individuals rights means that sometimes some individuals (like the assholes who posted the video referenced above) will abuse those rights. At which point you find those individuals and punish them.

Re:What?!?

[Muros]

What do you expect? Someone at Google has to watch and individually approve each and every video ever posted?

Apparently that would not be enough. "Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online." So, Someone at Google has to watch every video, personally identify every person involved in the video, and get their consent, and then approve it.

Re:What?!?

[anegg]

Perhaps that is exactly what is required - is is at least reasonable to debate the point rather than dismiss it outright.

Google offers a platform for publishing material. It is far different than a "common carrier" like the telephone company offering a communications system through which material is transmitted and received between individuals, or even an ISP (where multiple pairings are involved). It is, in fact, much more like a newspaper, with the difference that as it is currently run, no editor reviews the material appearing on the front page.

I can imagine a scenario under which material pertaining to me could be obtained illegally and published. If a newspaper were to publish it, I would certainly want to hold the editor of the newspaper responsible. In fact, the courts do find the editors of publications such as the National Inquirer (in the US, other publications elsewhere) responsible for publishing illegally obtained material regarding public figures such as movie stars.

Why is it so far-fetched to imagine holding the operators of an Internet-based publishing platform to a similar standard? Be careful in your responses, as I am not necessarily advocating holding them responsible; I am interested in understanding the reasoning under which it is considered ridiculous to do so.

Reasonable responses, anyone?

Re:What?!?

[Daengbo]

In your analogy, the account holder is the newspaper editor. Google is the delivery company that picks it up and trucks it off.

Re:What?!?

[Modern Demagogue]

This is fundamentally different than your examples; by definition youTube is using this content to turn a financial profit; they are not blind such as a phone company, who makes a profit by charging a fee to two users and provides a private channel of communication between them, or the mail, which is also private communication.

People need to stop thinking of YouTube / Google as some helpless 3rd Party that is not responsible for the content it disseminates, and that the paradigm of email or a network neutral approach applies. They are not a common carrier with distinct sender/receiver parties; they are a public distribution network accessible by all much closer to broadcast television. A television network would not be allowed to air a video like this without clearing all the rights to it, unless they were using it as part of a news piece, and even then they might have to blur some of the faces etc. Why should google not have a similar duty of care?

Google and Youtube are essentially for profit entities which sell ad space next to, before, or on top of content provided by another entity. All internet content distributors have a legal duty to make sure they have the rights to the content they distribute, before doing so.

Yes this is inefficient and would curtail the growth of such sites, but their explosive growth is only because they are not responsible for their true cost of doing business, and have been getting a free ride for far too long through a loophole exemption in the DMCA. I should not have to patrol the internet to make sure my copyrights are not being violated; I should be able to go to sleep at night knowing that my content is safe wherever it is being distributed, because that distributor has taken the necessary precautions to clear all rights and compensate performers, artists, and creators appropriately; even if that performer is an autistic child.

And yes, I do expect that someone at Google should watch every video, and file the accompanying paperwork; talent release forms, rights releases for music, photographic releases from the dp etc... Thats how it works with every other form of mass media. If it is impractically expensive; then perhaps the notion of Google, Facebook, etc, are impractical in and of themselves. And this would not violate free speech — you clearly don't have a firm grasp of what Free Speech actually means or entails. Copyright fraud or intellectual property theft are not protected elements of free speech.

Re:What?!?

[Volante3192]

I can think immediately of the counter-argument: "If you can't do it properly, please don't do it until you can."

We're sorry, but you cannot post this until it has been properly vetted by the Italian government. Your reply will now be redacted until the proper authorities can verify your post does not violate anyone else's rights or privacy.
.
.
.
In fact it would be likely, in your example, that of this discussion would likely be happening because Taco would still swamped under posts that say 'Why isn't this in idle?'

The same goes for any other message board, forum or community site that has visitor interaction. Imagine trying to filter Facebook or Twitter. You say free speech would not be harmed? I'm at a loss to understand how you could believe that.

Re:What?!?

[natehoy]

All internet content distributors have a legal duty to make sure they have the rights to the content they distribute, before doing so.

No. Internet content originators do. So if you posted a video to Google that turns out to be a copyright violation, you (as the person who posted the video) are open to a lawsuit.

Google will remove the video upon the copyright holder's request, but they didn't create the video. Their liability ends with good-faith efforts to comply with takedown notices, and compliance with court orders to help you track down the offender when you file suit.

And yes, I do expect that someone at Google should watch every video, and file the accompanying paperwork; talent release forms, rights releases for music, photographic releases from the dp etc... Thats how it works with every other form of mass media.

The content originator or their employer is usually held liable. Not their distribution or display channels.

Let's say I'm a music company produce a song and publish it, then sell that song over various channels. Those channels each make a profit by playing it. Then it turns out that four notes were similar enough to a Jimi Hendrix song and Jimi's great granddaughter sues me for $1 billion.

How much liability does the radio station who played my song or local CD shop who resold my CD share? Can Jimi's estate also sue them? I'm the only one who is accused of violating copyright, but others have profited from my violation.

How far does it go? Does the liability stop with the one who broke copyright, or does it extend to everyone who made a profit or was involved? Can they sue the recording studio I rented to make the CD? The manufacturer of the recording equipment? Albert Einstein's estate, since he invented recording media in the first place?

No. It stops with the person who originated the violating content and claimed rights to something they don't have rights to.

I should be able to go to sleep at night knowing that my content is safe wherever it is being distributed, because that distributor has taken the necessary precautions to clear all rights and compensate performers, artists, and creators appropriately;

No. If you want your copyrights enforced, you are responsible for identifying infringements and pursuing them. That's your legal right, and your legal responsibility. Copyright violations are a civil matter, between you and the person who is violating your copyright. No one else is qualified to identify them anyway.

Re:What?!?

[Xeno man]

Because in your poor analogy you are placing thing as you see them to fit your position in the argument. Basically we need to scrap this analogy and start a new.

Lets say you own a building downtown which as a large blank wall that faces the main street. Now lets say you had a mural painted on it like a city heritage or your company logo or anything to make it nicer. What it is is not important but what is important is that you have something there that you intend for people to look at. Now one night I come along and spray paint a giant penis on your wall. The next day people see it and eventually someone lets you know that it is there and you have it removed.

Now what your arguing is that you need to be charged for owning a wall that displayed a offensive image and that you need to hire a guard to patrol your wall to prevent anyone from doing that again. That seems like an excessive amount of responsibility on one person to control the actions of another but that is what your arguing here.

Mistake

[seven of five]

This seems to be a mistake by the particular court that tried the case. Don't the Italians have an appeals process? It's just silly.

Re:Mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't the Italians have an appeals process?

In the worst case, Google could go to the European Court of Justice since the European E-Commerce directive "says that "technical intermediaries" – web content hosts – are not liable for bad content but the creators or video posters are."

See this Euractiv article for more.

Re:Mistake

[delinear]

No, GP is right. The reason we have stupid laws is because we have stupid and/or corrupt politicians. The judge in this case isn't necessarily either stupid or corrupt - quite often an astute judge who recognises a stupid law will set up a trial case (preferably by finding against someone big enough to take care of themselves like Google) which they know will almost certainly go to appeal. Once it goes to appeal, any precedent set is more binding on the lower courts. This is one of the most powerful ways in which the judiciary can use the legal system to highlight unjust laws, and I have respect for those judges who do because they take an incredible amount of flak from the man in the street who just sees a stupid decision.

That's not to say, of course, that the judge in this case wasn't just stupid and/or corrupt (there's definitely a non-zero chance of that), GP is just advocating that we perhaps, you know, get all the facts before decrying him. Generally the wording of the judge's decision will show his intent, if he speaks a lot about being bound by the letter of the law then he's doing this to get the law discussed and perhaps reconsidered. If he mainly talks about the culpability of the defendents then he's likely dumb or getting a brown envelope bonus in this month's salary.

Re:Mistake

[Saint Fnordius]

This may be what happened here, the lower court judges expecting their decision to be overturned but still wanting to make a statement. They don't care that it clogs up the system and eats up lawyer time on both sides, it's all about showing everyone that they're boss. To them, Google is rich and can afford it, so they don't care.

Of course, I don't wholly discount the idea of Berlusconi agents applying pressure and greasing palms to chill the atmosphere either. I merely think it's the less likely excuse, yet still very plausible.

Re:Mistake

[bjourne]

But Google isn't merely a technical intermediary, they are also in a way publishing the material. They control the front page, which videos to push and most importantly, they are the ones making money on the ads. I don't think they should be entirely without liability for what happens on their site. The situation is very tricky.

Re:Mistake

[AlecC]

The first thing Google should do is block uploading of videos to Google Video (and YouTube, which they own) from Italian IP addresses with an annoying great splash screen explaining that, in compliance with Italian Law, they are no longer able to accept them. Still allow viewing of other people's videos, of course, so Italians still use Google Video. of course, it will involve some revenue loss as Italians move to other places to store their pictures. This should get a significant number of pissed-off Italian users asking their politicians WIHIH?

And, if they can, hide any clips they already have up loaded from such addresses. Nothing like people having they prized videos suddenly become inaccessible to make them ask for explanations.

Re:Mistake

[lordholm]

If the video was uploaded to a "normal" pay for web hosting ISP, they are also making money from you for serving the video. The point with this is that what you say does not really make any sense in terms of an argument.

Yes, they control the front-page, but does it matter if the front page looks pretty to compared to for example an FTP site where you just would get the file listing?

The e-commerse directive, articles 14 and 15 are very clear on the situation, some argue that they where written with ISPs in mind, but that doesn't really matter because it speaks only of hosting and, until there is a new directive written with cloud like services and not ISPs (though I fail to se the difference), the directive will be the one that is deciding what should be done.

Google acted as soon as they where notified by the authorities about the video and removed it within 2 hours. This fulfils their obligation. And no, google does not read the video comments for all the 50 billion video clips that they host, so claiming that Google was notified because someone wrote a comment that they wanted it to be removed does not hold.

Bread and circuses

[pv2b]

This is ridiculous.

If Youtube is illegal in Italy, maybe Google should just start blocking people from Italy from accessing the site. Maybe then people will care, when the people's bread and circuses are threatened.

Re:Bread and circuses

[Colz Grigor]

Or, at the very least, disable all uploading ability on YouTube or posting ability on Blogger or any other user-contributed Google sites from Italian users, citing this case and the unwillingness of Google to accept any more user submissions from Italian users until the case is resolved. I think that would be totally fair and completely within Google's rights.

Google could do that, but That's precisely what Berlusconi wants in the first place: complete control over all media in Italy. It would send more of a message to stop accepting advertisements by Italians, so Google can claim no Italian revenue and pay no Italian taxes.

American values in conflict here

[Anonymous Coward]

We are beginning to see a confrontation between American long held beliefs in free speech and what other nations consider to be free speech.

We are seeing this happen with internet censorship in Australia, Europe, and Asia.

It is quite possible that in the near future the internet will look very different on a per country basis.

Easy solution

[Ant P.]

Automatically notify the Italian government of every single public video uploaded to Youtube, and offer them a 5 minute delay before it becomes viewable inside Italy in which time they can reject it.

They'll be begging for it to stop after half an hour.

Re:firsta posta mamma mai!

[ircmaxell]

This is honestly the first time in my life that I am ashamed of my heritage. This is absolutely ridiculous and reeks of corruption and incompetence. I seriously hope that --for all of our sakes-- this gets overturned in the appeal. But seriously, when did "having evidence of a crime" make you guilty of a crime (So long as you didn't try to tamper or hide it)? Did I miss the memo?

Privacy and Google don't go together

[omega6]

From the article it says that Google was convicted of violating privacy law for not getting permission to post the video. The nature of the video is irrelevant. I don't know Italian privacy law, but if they do have requirements that you must get permission to post video recordings of people on the internet, then this is Google's problem for not bothering to care about the local laws.

Re:Privacy and Google don't go together

[Adrian Lopez]

I don't know Italian privacy law, but if they do have requirements that you must get permission to post video recordings of people on the internet, then this is Google's problem for not bothering to care about the local laws.

Google aren't the ones who posted the video -- they are just the conduit. If Italian authorities wish to take action against those who post videos without permission then let them pursue those who actually choose to post them instead of those who provide the platform.

Wow.

[Pojut]

Just wow.

This is so far over the top...based on the couple of different sources I have seen this story so far, Google immediately complied when asked to take the video down, assisted the authorities in finding the culprits, and fully cooperated....and the EXECUTIVES, who amount to pencil pushers with decision making powers, get convicted? Seriously, what the hell...that makes no sense.

They must have used the Chewbacca defense against them or something...

Re:Wow.

[Eivind]

I dunno. The "immediately" part only applies if you start counting from the first letter-from-lawyer. If you count from when Google Italy actually received the first written complaint about the video, then it took more than 2 MONTHS before anything happened. (and there's no indication anything would've happened at all, if not for the lawyer-attention)

Giving Privacy Laws A Bad Name

[mdwh2]

The UK's former Information Commissioner Richard Thomas said the case gave privacy laws a "bad name".

To which I entirely agree. Privacy laws have been used here in the UK (e.g., when the News Of The World posted a video showing Max Mosley in private acts), but the point is that firstly these are civil cases not criminal ones, and secondly, it requires intent, and does not make someone liable for merely "allowing" it, or running a server where users post content.

Even for something that clearly is and should be illegal, this ruling would be worrying - it's making server owners personally and criminally liable, rather than seeing them as common carriers.

But as mad as this is, in some sense this should be no different to say, if China decided to convict a Google exec for linking to pro-democracy pages, for example. Stupid, yes, but Google can and should ignore it. Those convicted do not live in Italy, so I don't see how they would have to comply if they don't visit (of course if they get extradited, then that will be mad). Google doesn't even have to pull out of Italy - they can surely just carry on, and it's up to Italy to try to block them.

The worrying thing though is that this is not some far off country, but a member of the EU.

This is Italy

[bradley13]

"reeks of corruption and incompetence" This is, after all, Italy: the country that elected and then re-elected Berlusconi.

Re:This is Italy

[Dishevel]

At times like this I love my sig.

Re:So basically...

[natehoy]

Yes. It also means the postmaster general is liable for trafficking in illegal drugs, assuming the person who pushed the kilo of cocaine through your letterbox affixed postage to it first.

Riiight

[Taibhsear]

Prosecutors argued that Google should have sought the consent of all parties involved with the video before allowing it to go online.

And should I get permission from the cop that I catch tasering someone for no reason before I post that video as well? That statement is ripe for abuse.

Misleading news

[ifchairscouldtalk]

The video was NOT removed as soon as it was brought to Google's attention.
According to the prosecutors the video remained online for two months even though web users had already asked for it to be taken down.

It is also worth mentioning that Google execs will not serve jail time because in Italy sentences of less than three years are commuted for people without criminal records.

Re:firsta posta mamma mai!

[wurble]

Did you see the Amanda Knox trial? This is the same legal system that convicted 2 obviously innocent people of murder with no evidence and sentenced them to prison for over 20 years even though they had already CONVICTED SOMEONE ELSE FOR THE SAME CRIME!

My wife and I had planned on visiting Italy in the next few years. After watching the trial, we changed our minds. Italy's legal system has ... "flaws."

In Italy

[SpaghettiPattern]

In Italy defamation is a beloved way to make people shut up. In two occasions I was threatened to be sued over defamation.

For the record, both times a car driver behaved like an arse and I told them they were 1) "un coglione" which is best translated as knobhead/dickhead/idiot and 2) "stronza" (bitch.) Both times the defamation threat came instantaneously. Knowing it would cost me US$ 100 tops, I actually enjoyed the frigging beggars -their motives were mostly financial IMHO- winding themselves up.

I suppose I actually deserved a bit of verbal thrashing and intimidation in those cases. But imagine much worthier goals being seriously hampered by this. You very quickly defame someone in Italy on the base that they actually deserve it.

We Italians sort of cherish elaborated, concocted, ridiculous laws. It makes us feel "save" in a way that if push comes to shove we will find some way to delay or attack the adversary.

Yes, I'm Italian and quite ambivalent about it. Don't think, however, that I would trade in my nationality that lightly. It's certainly not the best nationality to have but I haven't came across a better one so far. I trust most feel the same about their own nationality.

Don't look at google

[gmuslera]

If is a valid precedent, then in any moment slashdot admins could be convicted in Italy for an AC comment. Or any of us, if we didnt promoted down that comment when had moderating points.

Re:Don't look at google

[bickerdyke]

Are you sure Italy has case law?

Re:firsta posta mamma mai!

[rvw]

My wife and I had planned on visiting Italy in the next few years. After watching the trial, we changed our minds. Italy's legal system has ... "flaws."

You misunderstand. Those "flaws" are in fact "features" designed by the government, to support that government (or the media companies associated with it) whenever it needs them.

What did you expect?

[sp3d2orbit]

The president Silvio Berlusconi and his family own 45% of all media in the country (http://ketupa.net/berlusconi.htm). He regularly uses his political position to personally enrich himself and his family.

Google came into the country and threatened his source of income by offering a media platform not controlled by the Berlusconi's. This has nothing to do with the autistic boy in the video, but everything to do with the retarded president.

Re:What did you expect?

[mdm-adph]

Aye -- I think this has very little to do with an actual crime, and everything to do with Berlusconi not wanting videos of himself being smashed in the face with miniatures ending up online.

They either want Google to pull out or give the Italian PM the control he wants.

More lawsuits!

[h00manist]

Well, it is Italy. Perhaps the victim will sue for having had his only chance at five minutes of fame nixed by Google. The mob-perpetrators will sue the state and the media for slander because they were just doing their job. Everyone will get killed. Then, there will be a marriage, a party, everyone will go to the beach, and confessions will be heard on a rock by a Catholic priest, you will be absolved if you are in scuba gear or have killed enough people.

Not the judges per se

[Xest]

This is political.

I would wager that this is Berlusconi's way of trying to control the web, you have to keep in mind this is a man who has a stranglehold on Italian media, and has used that to get into, and stay in power over the years. The web has been a headache for him, because it's an avenue from which people are getting news and which he does not control.

The judges may well be incompetent, or corrupt, but really they're just pawns in a bigger battle.

It's really hard to see how it can be anything else, I do not believe judges would reach the conclusion they did based on the fact that Google had done everything possible in their power, and based on the fact the people at Google in question who were targetted, are in some cases completely irrelevant and unattached to anything to do with the case.

It's likely that these people were chosen because they were high enough to make a point, but not the top dogs who really would have been able to unleash hell and fight back.

This is certainly one way in which Berlusconi could try and control the web such that it adheres to his viewpoint as much of the Italian media that he controls does, by ensuring that content providers are criminally responsible for anything put up that the government disagrees with. It's not a big deal for the Google execs, because they will likely never travel to Italy and so the case wont effect them- but picture this, you run a site in Italy critical of the Italian PM, you post photos of him carrying out an illegal deal, and, well, now you know where it will land you at least- jail. Anyone not from Italy doing the same, faces jail if they ever decide to travel to Italy after being convicted of the same.

It's almost as if Berlusconi has been taking lessons from the likes of Chavez and Ahmadinejad recently.

Re:Not the judges per se

[klenwell]

This was my conclusion, too, as soon as I read the headline after hearing this story on NPR last week:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123761651

From that report:

One patron, Christian Lingreen, says his native Denmark has 100 percent Wi-Fi coverage — Italy maybe just 1 percent. "I love Italy," he says, "but I have to say [information technology], that is not their cup of tea."

Nearby sits Riikka Vanio of Finland, who is a mother of two children. "In the school, it's impossible to pass information to other parents through Internet, because none of them have Internet connection at home or not even e-mail address," she says. "So it's not part of their culture yet."

Nevertheless, Italy's right-wing government is going far beyond its European partners with the decree that would require Web sites with video content to request authorization and would mandate the vetting of copyrighted videos before they're uploaded.

Re:Confused as hell about this line

[wintercolby]

I'm sorry, I did figure this out. No one was convicted of criminal defamation, which would suggest that they were charged with it. 3 out of 4 were convicted of failure to comply with privacy code. This could be viewed several ways, the judge was rational and wanted someone with deep pockets to get the privacy code repealed/reviewed/replaced (understand enough about the US judicial system, but no clue how this might work in Italy.)

The fact that all 4 were found not guilty of a more severe sounding offense seems to be good news. The fact that one person was found not guilty of anything also seems to suggest that there is little insanity taking place here.

Keep in mind...

[Anonymous Coward]

... That Berlusconi, beside being the president of that country, is too the manager of almost every TV stations in Italy (Mediaset).
I live in Switzerland, and I cannot find it again, but I read some weeks ago that a law was to be enforced to regulate the viewing of on demand video.

The article was relating the big amount of money that where being put into a on-demand video platform for mediaset at the same time, and how youtube was the first competitor to put aside.
http://www.totaltele.com/view.aspx?ID=450891
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Berlusconi-s-Government-Plans-to-Severely-Restrict-Online-Video-in-Italy-132350.shtml

Given the fact that Berlusconi says all the time that "The bad journalists are attacking me without reasons all the time" http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/15/f-berlusconi-saga.html, and how he consider that the fist in face he received some times ago was "organized and planed via facebook" http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=alDDK9lGqxtY I am not that surprised of that move.
After all, he passed a law giving him immunity in every lawsuit for corruption that where opened against him when he came back to the government.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/18/silvio-berlusconi-immunity-prosecution

Tried accessing YouTube from the Rome...

[netsavior]

"Youtube.com is inaccessible from your country."
Error 1942 - Fascist exception overflow. Please disable Axis powers and reload the page.

Re:firsta posta mamma mai!

[Anonymous Coward]

There were certainly large holes in the prosecution's argument, and their random character assassination tactics were pretty underhanded, but the evidence that she was at least present at the murder is rather strong. (Click 'more' to read it all.)

My heroes

[elrous0]

Is this the same Italy that let a a fugitive child rapist attend an awards ceremony in their country without the slightest fear of arrest? So I guess it's okay to rape a kid as long as you don't bully them on Youtube? What noble defenders of our kids, that Italian government!

Re:Confused as hell about this line

[Saint Fnordius]

It looks like the GP typo'ed/brainfarted. The statement should read:

All four were accused of two crimes: failure to comply with the Italian privacy code and criminal defamation. Three of the four were convicted on the first one (failure to comply with the Italian privacy code). None were found guilty on the second (criminal defamation).

Small correction...

[IANAAC]

Silvio Berlusconi isn't the president. Never has been. He's the Prime Minister.

Re:Small correction...

[IANAAC]

In Italianyes. but when translated into English, it's always referred to as prime minister, since it would be confusing to English speakers. As an aside, the reason it's translated as prime minister is because most other parliamentary systems also refer to that role as prime minister, not president of the council of ministers.

Just sayin', as a translator.

Re:Again thats going backward

[delinear]

Here in the UK this kind of story comes up quite frequently - people posting "happy slapping", i.e. abusive, bullying videos online, and the stories always centre around the technology and how sick it is people are sharing this content on their phones/posting it online, very rarely does it centre on how sick it is that we live in a society where this kind of bullying is commonplace. I quite often get the feeling the people in power would be much happier to just ban such videos and go back to ignoring the problem (the way the schools have been doing for at least the last 30 years - hey, if we don't see it, it's not happening).

Re:firsta posta mamma mai!

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm pretty sure I know why this happened:Youtube is a serious threat to Berlusconi's stranglehold over all Italian TV stations.Considering how easy it is to set up a Youtube channel, traditional Italian TV is about to be pushed into irrelevance. Call Berlusconi whatever you want, but he isn't stupid. So he sends some favorable prosecutor after Youtube and will try to shut them down.

I don't know if this will lead to anything more than Youtube being pulled from Italy, because the Italian system isn't common law - judges don't create precedents. So I don't think this ruling means anything more than more "Youtube, stop interfering with our monopoly!" But other than that, yes it does reek of corruption and incompetence.

Re:firsta posta mamma mai!

[ChienAndalu]

And if you still decide to travel there, be sure that your wife wears something else than jeans.

Re:firsta posta mamma mai!

[NeutronCowboy]

Obviously innocent? You must have watched a different trial. She and her boyfriend had wildly differing stories about what happened, repeatedly changed their stories and had some other issues explaining what they were doing the night of the murder. Not to mention that it is entirely possible for more than one person to participate in a murder.

Yes, there were some obvious issues in the trial (her dna is found on a knife from their apartment? Shocking!) and there are plenty of well-deserved jokes about the Italian legal system, but to go as far as saying they're obviously innocent.... that's a stretch.

This is par for the course for Italy

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

This is very typical of Italian "justice". You must understand that in Italy they feel sorry for the worst criminals and like to convict lesser ones. People over 35 might remember the Achille Lauro hijacking where an elderly Jewish American cruise ship passenger was killed by terrorists. The terrorists were going to get away on an Egyptian Airliner until President Reagan ordered US fighters to intercept the flight and force it to land in Italy. The Italians showed up with their elite armed police and at gunpoint demanded the right to try the hijackers. And in justice the Italian way, they ended up feeling sorry for all of them and made all of the ones they convicted eventually eligible for work release. And of course, one of them took advantage of this and fled and it was only due to the competence of Spanish authorities that he was recaptured.

You must be aware too that Italy probably has the strongest voice in all of the EU against the death penalty. So like many countries that don't have it, they tend to be pretty soft on true criminal behavior. They are not like the UK where you actually can get locked up for life. Remember a few years ago when some guys tried and failed to do more terrorist bombings in London? At least one of the culprits fled to Italy and demanded to be tried there. He knew that he'd get maybe 10 years at most and be set free if he faced what passes for Italian justice.

Precedent does not matter

[js_sebastian]

No, GP is right. The reason we have stupid laws is because we have stupid and/or corrupt politicians. The judge in this case isn't necessarily either stupid or corrupt - quite often an astute judge who recognises a stupid law will set up a trial case (preferably by finding against someone big enough to take care of themselves like Google) which they know will almost certainly go to appeal. Once it goes to appeal, any precedent set is more binding on the lower courts...

...Except that italy's judiciary (as the judiciary of most of the world, except the former british empire) does not operate under common law, but civil law. Under civil law, precedents do not matter, only the law (as written by the legislative branch) and its interpretation matter.

Re:firsta posta mamma mai!

[ircmaxell]

Well, when you submit a content to one of these sites, you explicitly say that you have copyright over it and grant the site permission to use it. How are they supposed to verify every single work to see if you really did have the right to grant permission in the first place? It's not only inefficient, but for a sizable amount of content it's all but impossible (If you recorded a video of kids playing in a park, how can they know for sure if A. You actually took the video, B. You had permission to take the video, and C. You have the permissions of each and every person and object videoed to be recorded?)... You bring up news services as an example because clear all the rights to a video. That's different for two reasons. First, they are typically seeking the content (as opposed to openly receiving the content) and as such the onus comes on them to verify the source... Secondly, they are claiming the source as credible (and as such, they need to do the research to make sure it's not fake, pirated, etc)...

I should be able to go to sleep at night knowing that my content is safe wherever it is being distributed, because that distributor has taken the necessary precautions to clear all rights and compensate performers, artists, and creators appropriately

Let's say that I copy a work that you made, and then say that I made it. Unless the people I release it to recognize that it's yours, how in the world are they supposed to know that it's not my content? And how in the world should they be liable for me claiming that it's my own? Not only is that a logistical nightmare (maybe even impossible), but it's also a childish thing to ask for. What it boils down to is that you (or your guardian in the case where you are not mentally disabled) are responsible for the protection of your own rights. If I constantly harass you (phone calls, emails, whatever so long as it's non-violent), it's up to you to get the police to do something about it. If I threaten to kill you, it's up to you to take measures to protect yourself (calling the cops, hiring a body guard, etc). Freedom is not free, and neither are your rights. You need to fight for them, and to think that someone else should be doing that for you is ignorance at best...

How much is Italy's business worth to Google?

[ArundelCastle]

It's unlikely most countries would adopt the same restrictions China has, but obviously when Europe starts impacting the internet, pants are rightfully bricked. (Not that the U.S. lawmakers haven't had their fair share of calls for net filtering and ISP responsibility in the name of children, privacy, and copyright.)
Just to imagine what the landscape could look like a few years from now, following is *paraphrased* from Google's hearing before congress in 2006.

Some governments impose restrictions that make our mission difficult to achieve, and this is what we have encountered in Italy. In such a situation, we have to add to the balance a third fundamental commitment:

(c) Be responsive to local conditions.

So with that framework in mind, we decided to try a different path, a path rooted in the very pragmatic calculation that we could provide more access to more information to more Italian citizens more reliably by offering a new service – Google.it – that, though subject to Italy's self-censorship requirements, would have some significant advantages. Above all, it would be faster and more reliable, and would provide more and better search results for all but a handful of politically sensitive subjects. We also developed several elements that distinguish our service in Italy, including:

        * Disclosure to users -- We will give notification to Italian users whenever search results have been removed.
        * Protection of user privacy -- We will not maintain on Italy soil any services, like email, that involve personal or confidential data. This means that we will not, for example, host Gmail or Blogger, our email and blogging tools, in Italy.
        * Continued availability of Google.com -- We will not terminate the availability of our unfiltered Italian-language Google.com service.

Re:Another useless set of judges

[ottothecow]

No, you actually don't.

Maybe your parents could make some sort of claim since they technically created you, but if I take a picture of you hanging out somewhere (or getting beat up somewhere) and my photo becomes the next taking of Iwo Jima or sailor kissing nurse, I am free to sell prints of your likeness to art galleries and license it to news organizations and college dorm poster manufacturers for years to come.

Down Syndrome != Autism

[jonaskoelker]

My parent said:

This has nothing to do with the autistic boy in the video

The summary said:

a YouTube video showing a boy with Downs syndrome

And the internets at http://autism.suite101.com/article.cfm/autism_and_down_syndrome said:

One set of co-morbid conditions that are experiencing an upsurge in research is the existence of an autism spectrum disorder in an individual who also has Down syndrome

If autism and Down syndrome can coexist, it seems reasonable they can also not coexist, and that they therefore are different things.

Please don't confuse the two.

Re:firsta posta mamma mai!

[ChienAndalu]

You are privileging the hypothesis. Amanda Knox and her Boyfriend are obviously innocent. Rudy Guede is obviously the sole perpetrator.

first time ashamed of italy? wtf lol

[Weezul]

You must not pay ANY attention to Italian politics. Italy is the joke of Europe. lol

Spain, Portugal, Croatia, etc. are all more efficient and less corrupt. Turkey very likely matches Italy if your counting raw incidences, but Turkish corruption has a more administrative character, so people lose less money to corruption.

I know numerous real Italian-born highly educated young Italians living in Europe, except for a couple girls who choose to live near their parents, all prefer living abroad in France, Germany, or even miserable Britian over living in Italy.

It's a astonishingly bad time for young Italians living in Italy. Berlusconi's government's employment regulations have ensured most will never have the life their parents lived. I'm seriously not kidding, all the smart ones expatriate.

Berlusconi is apparently trying to gain some control over the web with this move, well he controls most non-web based news already.

Re:Another useless set of judges

[GasparGMSwordsman]

Only in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are VERY narrow under US Federal law.

For example, I could take picture of myself driving a car up the front of the Empire State building and sell those images. What I could not do is claim that the car company or Empire States building was endorsing me or my product.

Re:Good for them

[BeanThere]

The exact same arguments apply to any kind of online publishing forum that allow individuals to post content --- there is nothing "special" about video. Therefore, by the same logic, I suppose you also believe that online forums such as slashdot should be required to vet every single post a user makes before it goes online, in case it contains anything illegal etc. In fact, what you're saying is that there should not be such a thing as a public publishing forum. In fact, you're defending fascism - maybe unwittingly through stupitidy or maybe maliciously, but the effect is the same. People like you give me the creeps, what a horrible world we'd live in if you had your way in the legal system. This is precisely why Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants".

evil powerful men abuse their powers they have

[Weezul]

Berlusconi hasn't stolen nearly the quantity that Bush stole, nor murdered nearly so many innocent people. I'm unsure however that Bush was actually quite so blatantly corrupt as Berlusconi.

For example, I would compare the fact that Bush repealed the estate tax for 4 years with the fact that Berlusconi passed a two month tax amnesty for bringing money back into Italy from Swiss bank accounts.

Bush's temporary repeal of the estate tax seems more like grand standing because rich people must actually die within those four years for their children to benefit. Berlusconi used those two months to personally move like 500M euros from his Swiss bank accounts back into Italy.

Are these incidents comparable? I'd say both passed enormous other tax breaks for the rich, although perhaps Bush's were more onerous. We know both threw enormous sums of money towards their powerful corporate friends. Yes, Bush gave away vastly more money, but one should compare these numbers with the GDP, and shadow GDP in Italy's case.

Italy isn't nearly so blatantly or aggressive in foreign affairs of course. In particular, Italy didn't transparently fake the justifications for invading another country while expecting the obviously fake justifications would improve their electoral chances.

Re:mod parent up

[somersault]

I do think this is a shameful situation, but it's really not YouTube's fault any more than it's Slashdot's fault that people post up ASCII pictures of Goatse, or it would be Google's fault for finding pages full of racial hate or porn or whatever when you search using ambiguous words, etc. These are high traffic public sites and simply would not function with any need for pre-approval.

Sure, people might upload something to a webpage that you don't want to be there. But they could just as easily email it, IM it, print it out and send it out by snail mail or put it in a self published magazine or newspaper. People are going to be assholes no matter what you do, and punishing the 99.999% of users who aren't abusing services in such a manner because of occasional abuse of the service is IMO simply wrong. By even considering such draconian censorship, you're just letting the assholes win.