Yahoo! Liable In Italy For Searchable Content

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Yahoo! Liable In Italy For Searchable Content

Posted by Soulskill on Monday April 4, 2011 @06:28PM from the how-does-internet-work dept.

h3rr d0kt0r writes "A recent decision of an Italian court could spark considerable discussion over the liability of a search engines. The court actually ordered Yahoo! to remove any link to any site containing unlawful copies of a movie. Under EU Directives 2003/31, liability of search engines is not regulated (save for caching activities). In the case brought to court regarding the film About Elly, it was not the caching activities of Yahoo! that were questioned (or any content hosted on Yahoo!'s servers), but the mere fact that searching for the film made it possible to reach websites allowing the streaming or downloading of the movie (actually, illegal sites got a better ranking then the official one)."

102 of 145 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

No monetary liability it seems by SmilingBoy · 2011-04-04 18:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

From the article it seems that Yahoo was not ordered to pay anything; "only" to remove a link. This is important as this means that there is no general threat of damage payments for linking due to this court order.
1. Re:No monetary liability it seems by yuhong · 2011-04-04 18:37 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Yea, DMCA takedown notices in the US do the same thing.
2. Re:No monetary liability it seems by AmonTheMetalhead · 2011-04-04 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  DMCA can force you to remove a link?!
3. Re:No monetary liability it seems by AK+Marc · 2011-04-04 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you are going to be a pedant, then DMCA can't force you to do anything. But the Italian ruling says that you must remove illegal content, but you aren't liable for that illegal content if you deal with the issue in a timely manner, which is exactly the same as the DMCA. There may be a difference in the definition of "illegal content" but that's immaterial to the legal parallels.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:No monetary liability it seems by infolation · 2011-04-04 22:04 · Score: 2
  
  DCMA sect. 512 protects the linker (under safe harbor), until they're aware the link is infringing. At that point the linker has to remove or disable access to the linked material.
5. Re:No monetary liability it seems by hoggoth · 2011-04-05 02:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Easy response: remove all links to any pages that mention the film "About Elly" at all. Claim technical difficulties. Movie dies on the vine. Movie industry thinks twice before asking for unenforceable shit again.
  
  --
  - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
6. Re:No monetary liability it seems by calmofthestorm · 2011-04-05 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  This. Only way to be sure you remove all infringing links.
  
  --
  93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
7. Re:No monetary liability it seems by sqlrob · 2011-04-05 03:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  No, they shouldn't. Forget removing any pages that mention that.
  Italy gets "Access Denied" in all search engines.
8. Re:No monetary liability it seems by jgagnon · 2011-04-05 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I thought we were supposed to nuke the site from orbit?
  
  --
  Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
9. Re:No monetary liability it seems by Ocker3 · 2011-04-05 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  Yahoo pulls out of Italy, another search engine moves in, buys up some political clout and gets immunity.
10. Re:No monetary liability it seems by Meski · 2011-04-06 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Unintended consequences bites the movie industry! I like it. Search Engine DEoptimisation.
re:yahoo by JohnVanVliet · 2011-04-04 18:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

I am beginning to think that Yahoo and Google
need to take a week off .
go on holiday for 7 days and watch a the world comes to a stop
then see what the court has to say .

--
"I don't pitch OpenSUSE Linux to my friends, i let Microsoft do it for me
Re:yahoo by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-04 18:41 · Score: 3, Funny

Bing! will come to save the day
Berlusconi orders a taxi by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-04 18:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is strange, when Berlusconi arrives incognito in Milan and asks a taxi driver to bring him to the whorehouse with the youngest employees, is the taxidriver then responsible for what happens next?
1. Re:Berlusconi orders a taxi by Sique · 2011-04-04 20:31 · Score: 1
  
  He should go unpunished, because searching for drugs shouldn't be a crime at all.
  If offering and taking drugs are a crime (for some non-reason), then the police should be punished for actually allowing drugs to be sold there. And the landlords should be punished for renting out to drug sellers. And the town should be punished for allowing dark alleys to exist where drugs can be sold. And the tire factory should be punished for selling tyres to an outlet which in turn sells to a taxi driver who helps people finding drugs.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
Replace their respective pages with a message by mykos · 2011-04-04 18:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Dear Customer of Yahoo/Google/Bing,
Recently, it has come to our attention that a group of copyright holders with a lot of sway in your legal system have managed to convince your government to force us to hand-pick every link we index. Unfortunately, this is not a viable solution. As such, we are no longer providing search services to your country. Good luck!

Hope to hear from you again soon if your government changes its mind!
1. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Calydor · 2011-04-04 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Mod parent up.
  If the big players in the search business could agree to this instead of going, "Woot, the others have backed out, this market is ours!" they could keep themselves safe.
  
  --
  -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
2. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by martin-boundary · 2011-04-04 19:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Bzzt, wrong. That strategy didn't work in China, and there's no reason it would work in any country with enough resources to spend on homegrown IT.
3. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by SomePgmr · 2011-04-04 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  I don't live in Italy, but I think the people there have a little more say in what their government does on their behalf.
4. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by martin-boundary · 2011-04-04 19:53 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, Italy has a respectable record in search engine research ( linky1, linky2).
5. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Xest · 2011-04-04 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  Of course it didn't work in China because China has Baidu which owns the vast majority of the search market, and with Baidu basically being a government sponsored search engine. It's an independent company but you don't run a business that size in China without doing what the authorities want. Look at Rio Tinto, a massive multinational, but because they didn't play China's game some of their workers were sent to jail, that's really the choice of the matter in China- you do it the government's way, or face arbitrary detention, torture, and possibly even the death penalty.
  Fortunately China is a fringe market in this case, few other markets have a home grown search engine that holds the majority of the market and is effectively government controlled, pointing it out as a reason it wouldn't work anywhere else in the world is stupid.
6. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by xnpu · 2011-04-04 20:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Please note that Baidu is mostly owned and operated by Goldman Sachs, not by the Chinese government. Also the majority of it's board members are US citizens.
  There is a government sponsored search engine, but the fact that you don't even know it's name says enough.
7. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by martin-boundary · 2011-04-04 20:18 · Score: 2
  
  Fortunately China is a fringe market in this case, few other markets have a home grown search engine that holds the majority of the market and is effectively government controlled,
  
  The Russian search engine Yandex is pretty good as well, that's another large part of the world covered.
  
  pointing it out as a reason it wouldn't work anywhere else in the world is stupid.
  
  You misunderstand. Those examples merely show that local search engines can dominate in a local market even when the Googles and Yahoos of the world compete with them directly.
  The wider question of what would happen if Google, Yahoo, Bing etc decided to voluntarily leave a national market is obvious. They'd be replaced in short order with a local search engine company who would thank their preferred deity for the free lunch.
8. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by marcello_dl · 2011-04-04 20:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Everything gets done by government decree and some tens of thousand laws in excess make justice inapplicable, that's been true for decades here.
  That does not mean the current government is just like the old ones. I don't buy the "politicians are stupid/insane" theory but when I read newspapers, at first I think: "Franz Kafka on acid".
  
  --
  ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
9. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by AK+Marc · 2011-04-04 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'd just scrub any links that contain content or link to the copyright owners for all movies by any studio that complains. If they want their stuff cleaned off the Internet, then their wish should be granted.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
10. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by clickety6 · 2011-04-04 21:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ha! The UK government has a less-than-impressive record with IT. They've spent billions on IT projects that have collapsed without any usable results. I don't see them having much luck getting something like google up and running. I expect other countries have similar poor records when it comes to costly IT failures.
  
  --
  ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
11. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by xded · 2011-04-04 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  I hope we won't need to get to that point to see "resources spent on homegrown IT" in Italy.
  But I'm not too optimistic.
12. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by infolation · 2011-04-04 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Ha! The UK government has a less-than-impressive record with IT. They've spent billions on IT projects that have collapsed without any usable results
  Fund the project with Nimrod Subhunter savings?
13. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by zr-rifle · 2011-04-04 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Hyper Search
  
  --
  Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
14. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Chris+Mattern · 2011-04-05 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  However, there aren't many such countries. China is one, India probably another. Italy can't play this game.
15. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by nanoflower · 2011-04-05 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  LOL. That's probably the best situation. If the owners of "The Hurt Locker" (an example) complained just remove all references to the movie from the search engine. That way the search engine company doesn't have to worry about which references might be illegal(a source of future lawsuits). It also has the side benefit of making the originator of the lawsuit reconsider their approach.
16. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by JasterBobaMereel · 2011-04-05 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that in China most of what people are searching for is from China, Baidu rely on this for market share and tailor their searches accordingly... this will not be true in many other counties
  If what you are searching for is Movies or Music related then unless it's Bollywood or Hong Kong Cinema then the main sites are likley to be US based ?
  There will always be some local content, but often a lot of what you are searching for is USA based ...
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
17. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  LOL. That's probably the best situation. If the owners of "The Hurt Locker" (an example) complained just remove all references to the movie from the search engine. That way the search engine company doesn't have to worry about which references might be illegal(a source of future lawsuits). It also has the side benefit of making the originator of the lawsuit reconsider their approach.
  That's effing brilliant. And Google owns Youtube. So long to any of that free publicity involving people looking up movie trailers to learn about a film their friends mentioned.
18. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by JasterBobaMereel · 2011-04-05 00:50 · Score: 1
  
  Government not needed - Baidu is not run by the Chinese government (it just plays by it's rules)
  Just checked and there are 177+ UK based search engines .... currently kept down by Google.co.uk being better ...
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
19. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by CastrTroy · 2011-04-05 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing beats the Canadian Firearms Registry. Over a billion dollars spent on a database that maps Firearms to their owners.
  
  --
  
  Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
20. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by arkenian · 2011-04-05 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yes but a.) China already had another search engine that had a majority share; b.) china is a big market. c.) the chinese government provides a massive infrastructure for filtering out links they don't like. I think the italian taxpayer is unlikely to want to spend that kind of money to a.) roll their own search and b.) provide a massive search filter. A.) they might get a private company to do without taxpayer dollars, b.) is much less likely.
21. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Isaac+Remuant · 2011-04-05 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sorry but users need to search RIGHT now so they won't go out and protest but try and find a quick alternative to your service. Even if it's not as good as the previous tool.
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
22. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Isaac+Remuant · 2011-04-05 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Please, please, please, let parent not be from USA because that would be really ironic.
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
23. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Xest · 2011-04-05 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you really got my point.
  It doesn't matter who owns it, or who is on the board, unless they're willing to do business the way China wants them to do business then they cannot do business in China, hence why it is effectively state controlled, and, when the staff on the ground are in China itself, and hence open to pressure from the Chinese authorities, what the board thinks they are doing, and what they are actually doing may well be two very different things. Google faced the same problem with it's internal leak in China, only it valued it's IP more than it valued profits, whilst for Baidu, theft of it's IP is a non-issue because no one's going to be able to do anything with it to compete with Baidu in China because they'd have to deal with the Chinese authorities anyway, and because Baidu has no interest outside of China.
  The China / Baidu situation is still largely unique compared to the search engine market in the rest of the world.
24. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Xest · 2011-04-05 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Russia- large geographically perhaps, it's not a particularly populous country relative to the landmass perhaps and isn't exactly a major player in terms of percent of population with internet access. It's a relatively small player for the most part, roughly 1/10th the population of China and 1/8th that of India, roughly half that of even Indonesia, and less than Brazil, Pakistan, and Nigeria even.
  How long do you think a search engine takes to get up and running and in people's searching habits?
  Do you really think it's quick enough to prevent an uproar about companies being caused implicitly by government to shut down search engines? Revolutions can happen in a matter of days, a policy u-turn is much smaller than a revolution.
25. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by UBfusion · 2011-04-05 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  Do you imply that an US-owned business located in China should abide by the US laws and not the China ones?
26. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by SomePgmr · 2011-04-05 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  I am, why is that ironic? If you're suggesting that the US doesn't actually have a representative government anymore, I understand your frustration but have to disagree. Though either way I don't think our governance situation worse than China's with respect to accountability to the people.
  
  But that's off topic. The question is whether or not Italy is worse than China with respect to government being accountable to its people. I don't think that's the case. But certainly call me out if I'm wrong on that.
27. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by martin-boundary · 2011-04-05 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks.
28. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by martin-boundary · 2011-04-05 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  How long do you think a search engine takes to get up and running and in people's searching habits?
  
  This is a good question worth expanding on.
  If we look to the filesharing scene, there's an unambiguous answer: if/when a file/music/torrent search engine falls off the face of the earth, which happens quite regularly, people move on to another rather quickly. People are remarkably resilient that way. They basically adapt and use what's available.
  If you're asking how long it takes to build an engine from scratch that offers comparable functionality to Google or Yahoo, there's no doubt that would take a long time. However, I'm not sure that's relevant.
  What's relevant is whether the search market demand can be filled locally. And that doesn't require a clone of Google in general. If Google is part of the market, then the local competition must offer comparable services, but if Google decides to leave the market (that's what this whole thread is about), then competitors can fill demand in any way, just so long as it is competitive relative to the other players in that market, if any.
  Consider the mom and pop store analogy. If you live in a backwater without a Wallmart, then the local mom and pop store has no real competition and it offers great value (where great is relative not absolute, but it's sufficiently good to thrive and meet the local demand). If a Wallmart exists close by, then the mom and pop store has to compete, which is generally impossible.
  
  Do you really think it's quick enough to prevent an uproar about companies being caused implicitly by government to shut down search engines? Revolutions can happen in a matter of days, a policy u-turn is much smaller than a revolution.
  
  I don't think people would revolt if Google (say) voluntarily shut down tomorrow. Not even close. Google is just a portal to the web. 1) The actual websites that people use would still be there. 2) Alternative Search engines would fill the gap, even if they aren't as good. 3) Using the web is a low priority compared with the fundamentals, like working, having a house and a family, etc. 4) The revolutions we've witnessed are about important things, like ending 20 years of dictatorship etc. Nobody is willing to get killed because their favourite search engine is 404'd.
29. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Xest · 2011-04-05 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  "If we look to the filesharing scene, there's an unambiguous answer: if/when a file/music/torrent search engine falls off the face of the earth, which happens quite regularly, people move on to another rather quickly. People are remarkably resilient that way. They basically adapt and use what's available."
  But it's completely different, in the file sharing scene such sites are basically available as FOSS downloads in their most advanced formats, in contrast FOSS search engine offerings are a joke compared to the big boys. If it doesn't offer the same level of benefits as the players that have just had to leave the market then there's still going to be a lot of unhappy voices airing their complaints, and we're not just talking about end users- we're talking about influential CEO's who have had it up to their neck with their departments claiming the governments decision leading to closure of search engines has made their jobs a nightmare.
  If you're working from a clean slate then you're right, people wont know any better if they're lumped with an inferior offering, but if they're used to something superior and lumped with something inferior they absolutely will not be happy and pacified by it.
  "I don't think people would revolt if Google (say) voluntarily shut down tomorrow. Not even close."
  That wasn't really the discussion though, the discussion was about a combined closure of search engines in the face of government meddling in the market as a whole- we're talking about the loss of most worthwhile competitors.
  "3) Using the web is a low priority compared with the fundamentals, like working, having a house and a family,"
  Of course, but what's that got to do with anything? No one said anything about the collapse of family life, it was merely a discussion about joint action by search engines to boycott a country that is really making life difficult for them to provide their service.
  "4) The revolutions we've witnessed are about important things, like ending 20 years of dictatorship etc. Nobody is willing to get killed because their favourite search engine is 404'd."
  Again where's that come from? I didn't say people would revolt or risk their lives over it, I merely made the point that if revolutions can help that quickly, then something like the loss of all worthwhile search engines could easily create a policy u-turn just as quickly. That of course has nothing to do with revolution in itself.
  No offence, but you seem to be trying to mould the discussion to suit your argument rather than addressing the actual discussion at hand- you've jumped to some very odd irrelevant extremes in that last paragraph.
  The simple fact is the discussion was whether search engines making a pact to pull out of a particular market altogether to try and persuade government to stop making things difficult for them would work, and frankly yes I think it would, because as I say:
  a) The void created could not be filled quick and acceptably enough to prevent uproar
  b) The effect on business and political standing of a leadership particularly in a democracy would be too much for a government to bear, and would be forced to u-turn
  The discussion was nothing more than that, and my point was nothing more, or nothing less than that.
30. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by Isaac+Remuant · 2011-04-06 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  Answering your post. I discover I misread your statement.
  I read it as a generic "People have a little more say in what their goverment does on their behalf (than the goverment itself)". Not as a particular case comparing both China and Italy.
  You're right about Italy being more accountable than China.
  That said, I still don't think the suggested messages (and denials to provide the service) would mobilize enough people and create sufficient pressure for a goverment to fear any kind of loss of political power. There are probably many more relevant issues to completely nullify this one the next time voters actually have a say. They're supposedly already represented and the people representing them are the ones pushing these laws.
  Now my answer about representation and the US (and other countries, even)
  I don't what your particular situation is or if all the accounts I've heard represent a low fraction of the population and I'm missing the real sample but all I keep seeing and hearing is how USA's goverments put corporations before anything, which makes sense, since they've gotten there thanks to the aid of who knows how many corporate lobbyists.
  With your current system. R or D get elected making a series of promises they need not keep once they're in power and there's little margin to fight that abuse. How's that for feeling represented by a goverment?
  How many decisions does your goverment take regadless of the constitution, of congress, of whatever the population's opinion is (although that, depending on the subject, might be hard to measure and easy to manipulate)?
  I wonder how many people are ok with the liberties and rights you keep losing due to the, now eternal, war on terror.
  
  --
  "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
31. Re:Replace their respective pages with a message by SomePgmr · 2011-04-07 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, too many. I know a number of people who would apologise for violations of our constitutional rights in the name of safety, so long as the politicians taking those rights away belong to the right party. The good news is that our system of checks and balances does a reasonable job of curtailing a lot of it.
  
  It's like sports, where people don't care what's right and wrong, only the "whodunnit". It's really aggravating. The good part is we do still get to speak pretty openly about it and we are still holding elections.
Poor Yahoo! can't catch a break by Lord_of_the_nerf · 2011-04-04 18:45 · Score: 1

First it's a terrible search engine, then it's out of touch, now this.
Though at least from it's name, it's upbeat.
1. Re:Poor Yahoo! can't catch a break by symbolset · 2011-04-04 18:49 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  To be fair, the pirate sites are the relevant results. Who looks for a movie's "official" website?
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
2. Re:Poor Yahoo! can't catch a break by AmonTheMetalhead · 2011-04-04 20:17 · Score: 1
  
  Movies have sites?!
3. Re:Poor Yahoo! can't catch a break by AK+Marc · 2011-04-04 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  I thought a movie's site was called a "theater."
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
4. Re:Poor Yahoo! can't catch a break by symbolset · 2011-04-04 22:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No, it's called a "torrent".
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
5. Re:Poor Yahoo! can't catch a break by mortonda · 2011-04-05 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  Wait... You mean imdb.org isn't the official website?
6. Re:Poor Yahoo! can't catch a break by internerdj · 2011-04-05 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that cute, you think that a movie's official website contains information.
simple solution by chichilalescu · 2011-04-04 18:49 · Score: 1

Yahoo! should ban any italian IP, saying that the cost of doing business in Italy is too great.
the public outcry will overturn the decision immediately.

--
new sig
1. Re:simple solution by lul_wat · 2011-04-04 18:51 · Score: 2
  
  "Implying" people actually use Yahoo! search
  
  --
  Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
2. Re:simple solution by pixline · 2011-04-04 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  You should know about italian government first, then you'd realize that - in fact - they won't give a buck for it. Let alone people, maybe they'll cry for a while but nothing more. Italian government is terrible, but average italian web-consciousness is somewhat worse. (And I'm italian, living in italy: figure out the pleasure..)
3. Re:simple solution by mug+funky · 2011-04-04 19:25 · Score: 2
  
  but your tomatoes are SO FUCKING GOOD
4. Re:simple solution by pixline · 2011-04-05 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  hey, if even tomatoes were bad we would have been here 'til now? :) we have WINE, man: that's the secret (and perhaps the issue).
Then don't link to movies. Period. by MartinSchou · 2011-04-04 18:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just pull up every single title for every single movie, tv-show etc. on IMDB and have your search engine return
"We're terribly sorry, but since you've searched for the title of a movie, and we can't know if a link is legal or not, we have chosen not to be sued by the creators of $title and won't show any results.
If you wish to know more about why you can't find any information about movies online, please call PFA at $phone number for further information."
And since your search engine isn't a paid service, it'd be hard to argue in court that it should return results that the copyright holders decide.
Let's see how the fuckers manage to get along and drum up publicity, if their crap can't be found online at all.
1. Re:Then don't link to movies. Period. by markass530 · 2011-04-04 19:18 · Score: 2
  
  Mod Parent +10 "Makes to Much Sense"
2. Re:Then don't link to movies. Period. by Buzer · 2011-04-04 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  There is already movie called as XXX ;)
3. Re:Then don't link to movies. Period. by slickepott · 2011-04-04 21:03 · Score: 2
  
  I think you're being two serious!
4. Re:Then don't link to movies. Period. by TheSpoom · 2011-04-04 22:09 · Score: 2
  
  They'd probably sue them for interfering with customers' ability to find legal copies of their movie.
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
5. Re:Then don't link to movies. Period. by bye · 2011-04-04 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  They'd probably sue them for interfering with customers' ability to find legal copies of their movie.
  Search engines could point to several past legal battles questioning the legal ownership of various high-profile movies. Every single big studio had such episodes in the past. If search engines are supposed to unindex sources of movies with questionable legality then they have to unindex all big movie studios as well, not just (alleged) pirate sites.
  If a movie studio can present a (final) court ruling against a pirate site then search engines have proper legal basis to unindex that site.
6. Re:Then don't link to movies. Period. by Mikkeles · 2011-04-04 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Et tu, Brute?
  
  --
  Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
7. Re:Then don't link to movies. Period. by MartinSchou · 2011-04-05 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you can sue anyone for anything.
  But since the movie studio or distributor would be trying to force someone else to do something for them for free, something that they aren't paying for, can't pay for an have no absolute right to, I would hope any sane judge would throw that suit out of a 10th floor window. If the lawyer happens to be IN the suit at the time, so much the better.
  After all - if they can force a company to give them free advertising, what's to stop them from forcing YOU to carry around a big advertising billboard six hours a week?
Could be bad news by bryan1945 · 2011-04-04 19:13 · Score: 1

If this goes through, and even worse goes international, what a mess this will cause. Staff needing to peruse all new links? Massive revamping of crawler routines? Gah.

--
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
1. Re:Could be bad news by Samantha+Wright · 2011-04-04 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  Nah; as someone else noted in these here comments, it's probably going to be more like an Italian DMCA. Nothing to worry about—other than the complete kookoo bizarreness that is the Italian media.
  
  Also, Benito Mussolini. What's the deal with that guy? Man. What a guy.
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Doesn't it go deeper than that? by masterpiga · 2011-04-04 19:19 · Score: 2

I agree with the fact that, in these cases, search engines could just stop providing some service in that specific Country. In countries with a democracy, such as Italy (well, ok, more or less...), hopefully the people will uprise and have their representatives to something about it.
Still, the problem is more general than that, and I would like to raise the point just for the sake of discussion. Consider pedo-pornography, which is a crime in Italy as it is in many other countries as far as I know. In that case, we all agree that search engine should do their best to avoid promoting links with pedo-pornographic material, since we all agree that it is a bad thing and we don't want them to be facilitators of the crime. But downloading copyrighted material without the consent of the copyright holder is a crime too, so isn't it reasonable that search engines should behave similarly, and do whatever they can to avoid helping those who are trying to break the law?
I think that, in the end, it is all a matter of subjective perception of the involved crime. Since many of us don't see downloading copyrighted material as a crime, we expect things to be handled differently in that case. But from the point of view of law enforcement, publishing a link to a movie for illegal download is no different than pointing users to readily available pedo-pornographic material, as in both cases the search engine is an accomplice in unlawful act.
Isn't this something that we should consider, or we accept that, as far as information retrieval is involved, we want the "law of the demand" to be the strongest, and we accept that our search engines retrieve anything that we ask for? In this case, I think that we need some laws to shift the responsibility of searching and retrieving on the end user, and only consider the search engine as a medium with no responsibility whatsoever.
1. Re:Doesn't it go deeper than that? by ae1294 · 2011-04-04 19:31 · Score: 1
  
  No I don't expect $search_provider to censor their database even if we are talking child porn. It's not a crime to interlink the web dumbass...
2. Re:Doesn't it go deeper than that? by masterpiga · 2011-04-04 19:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I agree on that - and if you had read my post until the end maybe you would have understood it too.
  But still, if according to a law facilitating illegal behaviors is unlawful (as is the case in Italy, but I guess many other countries have similar articles in their body of laws), then they are breaking the law. And the idea that is okay to break the law as far as I don't mind it, seems a little bit idiotic to me, no less than having a judge deciding what a search engine can or can't index.
  So, unless we claim that they are above the law, which I wouldn't recommend as a strategy, maybe it would be advisable to have laws that make $you responsible for what you search, as opposed to $search_providers responsible for what they provide, index or cache.
3. Re:Doesn't it go deeper than that? by mikechant · 2011-04-05 00:43 · Score: 2
  
  Your comment is based on the misconception that unauthorized downloading of copyright material *is* a crime. In most cases and most jurisdictions, it is a civil wrong, not a crime, and law enforcement has no role in investigating or prosecuting civil matters (the concept of prosecution does not even exist for civil matters).
  e.g. this
  But from the point of view of law enforcement, publishing a link to a movie for illegal download is no different than pointing users to readily available pedo-pornographic material, as in both cases the search engine is an accomplice in unlawful act.
  is completely wrong, because of the civil/criminal distinction.
  In the unauthorized download case it is entirely up to the copyright holder to decide if they wish to pursue the matter and bring a civil suit if necessary; in many cases they even choose to make their material available freely (e.g. via youtube) and so it's not actually possible for a linker to determine what is and is not authorized. In the other case the material is (generally) definitively illegal and it is the job of law enforcement to investigate etc.
4. Re:Doesn't it go deeper than that? by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-04-05 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  No, the problem with this situation is that search providers do not have an easy way to tell if a site is legitimate or not. By your logic (and that of the court) selling VCRs (and other similar devices) should be illegal because they "facilitate" making illegal copies of movies and tv shows. There are many other examples of things that we take for granted that can be used in a crime that this ruling could be applied to.
  I would agree that the search engine should have, at most, very limited liability for the results of its searches. I cannot at the moment think of anything that the search provider should have liability for providing as the result of a search, but I would not be surprised if someone could come up with a scenario where I would agree with holding the search provider liable.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
5. Re:Doesn't it go deeper than that? by masterpiga · 2011-04-05 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  I will try to rephrase my thoughts, which I seem not to be able to explain.
  I do not think that linking to _anything_ is a crime, but is in undeniable that it can make it easy for people who want it to commit a crime. I don't know what's the correct English wording for it, but I think that it is not wrong to say that in such cases they can be considered "accessory to a crime". I also don't like the idea that governments or judges can decide what a search engine can link or not.
  For these reasons, I think that it would be reasonable for search engines to be protected by explicit laws that free them of responsibility on these cases. If some content is illegal, then the source of the content should be liable for that, and if the use is illegal than the user should be liable for that, while in no case the search engine should be involved in it. Liability on the source and on the user are already accounted for by many legal systems, but what is generally missing is something protecting the search engines, which become involved in this thing between the medium that we use to locate and use possibly problematic data, and being them the only thing shared between the users and the sources, they are an easy target to bring down when authorities try to limit access to such data.
6. Re:Doesn't it go deeper than that? by masterpiga · 2011-04-05 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  As for the distinction between crime and "civil wrong", I just used the wrong word because I am not a native speaker. Let's call them "unlawful acts", if you prefer.
7. Re:Doesn't it go deeper than that? by ae1294 · 2011-04-05 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Any time I hear child porn used in any argument I shut down and automatically disagree. You see I'm trying to balance out the populace who automatically agree.
  Plus I'm relatively sure everyone already has laws making $you responsible for what you do. Hopefully it will never come to it that what you search for becomes illegal as well. Typing in "child porn" or "movies" into a search engine shouldn't get you flagged at the FBI.
8. Re:Doesn't it go deeper than that? by JimFive · 2011-04-06 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  I do not think that linking to _anything_ is a crime, but is in undeniable that it can make it easy for people who want it to commit a crime. I don't know what's the correct English wording for it, but I think that it is not wrong to say that in such cases they can be considered "accessory to a crime".
  I don't think that the printer of the city map can be held responsible for helping the bank robber find the bank, nor can the nice person at the tourist office that gave directions. Thus, I don't agree that a search engine can be held responsible for helping an internet user find a website. Therefore I don't agree that it is "reasonable for search engines to be protected by explicit laws" because creating that specific law creates an environment where a large number of other acts are now questionable. Once a law is made specifically allowing a type of activity then any related activites that are not addressed in law are now suspect.
  --
  JimFive
  
  --
  Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
9. Re:Doesn't it go deeper than that? by masterpiga · 2011-04-06 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Fine, in a world of reasonable people we could go without laws at all, and I am generally against the proliferation of little and particular laws - one of the biggest problems of my Country, if you ask me. Fact is that what we think is not too important, given that it looks like a judge has just deliberated against our idea.
Re:yahoo by mug+funky · 2011-04-04 19:24 · Score: 4, Informative

without google, bing's results will just return gibberish.
Busy times ahead... by xenobyte · 2011-04-04 19:24 · Score: 2

Search engines are now required to remove links to any and all illegal items, ideas or concepts. No bomb recipes. No lock picking manuals. No gay-support (homosexuality is illegal in dozens of countries), no free speech (outlawed in many countries)... Oh wait, it's only items owned by Big Corporations (tm) that gets this treatment. All other illegalities are still welcome on the search engines... Go figure.

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
1. Re:Busy times ahead... by xnpu · 2011-04-04 20:10 · Score: 1
  
  This is the thing many people, especially Americans, refuse to see. The only reason their government is relatively relaxed on speech etc, is because the real legislators and enforcers are corporations. They are the true overlords and even the Chinese government doesn't come near their level of oppression of the general populous.
Spellcheck by pasv · 2011-04-04 20:09 · Score: 1, Informative

If you can read English then please replace then with than in the last sentence. Ok thanks bye
1. Re:Spellcheck by Tim+C · 2011-04-04 23:54 · Score: 2
  
  Ok, thanks and bye are all British English.
  Also, Shakespeare had trouble spelling his own name and so while arguably a literary genius should perhaps not be held up as an example of a linguistic one.
  Hope that helps.
  
  --
  It's official. Most of you are morons.
Yahoo ban Italian IP? by symbolset · 2011-04-04 20:28 · Score: 1

Oh, yeah. All ten of the Italian Yahoo users will be protesting in the streets, undertipping and reducing their political contributions. Big impact. HUGE.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
1. Re:Yahoo ban Italian IP? by sqlrob · 2011-04-05 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently there are enough users for the studio to care to sue.
As an American by symbolset · 2011-04-04 20:30 · Score: 1

We're all in the same boat, friend.

--
Help stamp out iliturcy.
No way to defend yourself? by Superdarion · 2011-04-04 20:34 · Score: 1

So, how would this work? If I own the copyright to a movie and I know that site X is distributing an illegal copy, then I go tell yahoo to remove the link? Sounds reasonable, except for the implication that since they can't legally fight the site itself, they go to the Search engine instead, which means that the site owner never gets a chance to defend himself.

Man, it sucks to be an ISP or Search Engine these days.
1. Re:No way to defend yourself? by UBfusion · 2011-04-05 05:20 · Score: 1
  
  Why not tell them to remove the link? Hotfile, for example, receives tons of such requests and removes links accordingly.
Finally, a step in the right direction. by Khenke · 2011-04-04 20:43 · Score: 1

I have been waiting for a bit "normal" search site to get sued (okej, they haven't here but almost the same) so that we can see how absurd that torrent search sites get sued.
Yes, there are a bit that differ from Isohunt/Piratebay and Google/Yahoo/Bing but not much. In Google I can search for torrent files and find the same pirated content.
But the main difference is that the big search sites have money for good lawyers while torrent sites don't.
Oh, and Google actually host "pirated" media (books, pictures and so on) while none of the torrent sites does.
So for me it is as it always have been. Large corporations can do what the fuck they want while ordinary people can't do even close to the same thing.
Anonimity is Ours! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-04 20:49 · Score: 1

If you don't want the search engines indexing your life, just link to something infringing!!!
It's Italy by xerces8 · 2011-04-04 22:06 · Score: 1

This from the country where the president (Prime Minister to be exact) engages in sex with underage prostitute(s).
No surprise.
Re:yahoo by Tim+C · 2011-04-04 23:49 · Score: 1

If the court says anything it is likely to be along the lines of not being held to ransom by corporate pressure.
If you want a law changed, you have to convince the lawmakers - i.e. the politicians.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
No, Even Worse by skywire · 2011-04-05 01:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

The judge did not order Yahoo to "remove a link". The judge ordered, whether with or without understanding of the outrageous meaning and far-reaching consequences of his or her action, that Yahoo somehow modify their search engine such that it will simply not do what a search engine properly does. And don't imagine for a moment that the judge's order does not come with the threat of punitive action such as monetary sanction, confiscation of property, or arrest.

--
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
1. Re:No, Even Worse by UBfusion · 2011-04-05 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  What exactly is the "outrageous meaning and far-reaching consequences" that you imply? Yahoo (and I bet Google and Bing are next sooner or later) will just have to not display search results that include any film's title together with additional keywords such as dvdrip, brrip, xvid, aac, mkv, hdtv, x264, etc. I'm suspecting this does not require more than a few lines of code and while not sufficient to block 100% of infringing results, it will be quite a proof of good intention and willingness to comply with the judge's decision.
2. Re:No, Even Worse by internerdj · 2011-04-05 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well I had this all typed out with links and more witty but you are suggesting that Yahoo should block: dvdrip Family Video brrip Personal xvid legal dvdrip is it legal?
Re:yahoo by multisync · 2011-04-05 02:07 · Score: 2

That, I'm afraid, is called blackmail. It is a punishable offence in many a country. Especially doing it to a court...
Blackmail is extorting payment by use of threats. Telling someone you will not index their web pages unless they stop threatening you with lawsuits is not blackmail.

--
I don't care why you're posting AC
Re:then does not equal than by Issarlk · 2011-04-05 05:56 · Score: 1

yeah right.
"(actually, illegal sites got a better ranking then the official one)"
So illegal sites got the best ranking. then an undiscosed amount of time later it was the official one that got the best ranking?
Try this search by johosaphats · 2011-04-05 07:00 · Score: 1

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ah_DPavy4Za9jFbCJYEqaLCbvZx4?p=then+vs+than&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-375
Viability by Teufelsmuhle · 2011-04-05 07:20 · Score: 1

"A recent decision of an Italian court could spark considerable discussion over the viability of search engines."
There, fixed that for you.
Misuse of then/than by Chili-71 · 2011-04-06 01:48 · Score: 1

actually, illegal sites got a better ranking then the official one
It is my opinion that then/than are probably two of the most misused words in the English language. Then, an adverb meaning at a time. Back then I used to not care. Than, a conjunction used as after comparative adjectives and adverbs, to introduce the second member of an unequal comparison or as a preposition to show relation to or comparison with (usually followed by a pronoun).

The correct statement would there be: ...actually, illegal sites got a better ranking than the official one...

Oh, wait. This is a geek site, sorry, my bad.
Great that you sued Sony, but this pitiful by DanielBMS · 2011-04-06 05:17 · Score: 1

Remove Yahoo from Italy at once!