Your upload has been queued for screening - Expect it to go live within the next 12 - 24 months

February 24, 2010 12:22 PM

In 2006 some Italian teenagers filmed themselves assaulting a youth with Down Syndrome and uploaded the video to Google Video Italia. It was pulled from the site within hours, but that did not satisfy the Italian Down Syndrome support group named Vivi Down, who filed a complaint that resulted in a two-year investigation. That lead to charges and indictment of four Google executives, who were never aware of the video until after it had been removed, for violating Italy’s privacy code. Today the Italian court ruled that three of the four - chief legal officer David Drummond, global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer and former CFO George Reyes - are guilty, and sentenced them to 6 months to a year of jail-time. The fourth, Arvind Desikan, former head of Google Video in London, was acquitted.

Official Google Blog: "If that principle [of safe harbor] is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear.

Others see this as a a win for Old Media, arguing "Why should online media companies be allowed to host and broadcast anything? Traditional media organizations have large editorial teams to check the content before publication. That’s an expensive process but it’s a responsible one. Why should online media companies such as Google video be exempt from that?

Google has said they will appeal.

posted by BeerFilter (78 comments total)

So, um, what happened to the teenagers who actually committed a crime?
posted by Saxon Kane at 12:26 PM on February 24, 2010 [7 favorites]

Italy is a nation of organized crime, and its courts have no authority whatsoever in my mind.
posted by koeselitz at 12:27 PM on February 24, 2010 [6 favorites]

You know who owns the majority of Italian "Old Media" don't you ?
posted by adamvasco at 12:28 PM on February 24, 2010 [5 favorites]

That's ridiculous. I'd just shut down my business in italy if I were google.
posted by empath at 12:28 PM on February 24, 2010 [4 favorites]

Gomorra!
posted by blucevalo at 12:31 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

That's ridiculous. I'd just shut down my business in italy if I were google

No joke, you'd think that if even China is trying to bend over backwards to appease google, Italy would probably do the same.
posted by Think_Long at 12:31 PM on February 24, 2010

This will hopefully be overturned on appeal, even if the European Court has to do it.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 12:32 PM on February 24, 2010

Today the Italian court ruled that three of the four - chief legal officer David Drummond, global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer and former CFO George Reyes - are guilty, and sentenced them to 6 months to a year of jail-time.

They received suspended 6 month sentences. There is a world of difference between a 6 month suspended sentence and "6 months to a year of jail-time". It's still ridiculous, but this FPP is misleading.
posted by ssg at 12:35 PM on February 24, 2010 [7 favorites]

Wow, the Italian courts took the Google Buzz launch really badly, huh?
posted by quin at 12:36 PM on February 24, 2010 [9 favorites]

Yeah Italy, this is the real problem you should be dealing with right now. Asshole kids uploading videos of crime to Youtube.
posted by lattiboy at 12:37 PM on February 24, 2010

Yeah, I'm as simulatenously as much of a big fan and a doubtful critic of Google as one can be without their head and heart's exploding from going in opposite direction, but I haven't been so much on their side of an issue in a while. And it's a weird situation where I'm going to side against something that could be interpreted as support for beating somebody with Down Syndrome.

And then along comes adamvasco's link, and I go from "supporting Google" to "blood boiling." The US has so much $%&* wrong with it that it's hard to forget we didn't invent nor do we have the monopoly on things like that.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:40 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

I don't see this as ridiculous. If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content? If you don't want that kind of responsibility then don't get into that business. People shouldn't be ale to just wash their hands of the responsibility to avoid harming others.
posted by oddman at 12:41 PM on February 24, 2010

"It’s a bit much for Google to argue that this ruling “attacks the very principles of freedom on which the internet is built.”

The freedom to broadcast the video of a disabled boy being beaten and insulted? Really?"

More like freedom from prosecution if users not affiliated with you in any way use your service to do something bad. I suppose should we prosecute Telephone companies for people coordinating bad acts via telephone, or power companies for posters stapled to poles ?

The reason old media is choking and dying is because morans like this have been writing crap like that for far too long. I'm supposed to weep when this guy is out of a job ?

Also, his hairut makes him look like a douche.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 12:45 PM on February 24, 2010 [14 favorites]

I don't see this as ridiculous. If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content? If you don't want that kind of responsibility then don't get into that business. People shouldn't be ale to just wash their hands of the responsibility to avoid harming others.
posted by oddman

Please tell me you're trolling. PLEASE.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:45 PM on February 24, 2010 [2 favorites]

Criminals should be encouraged to upload videos of themselves.
posted by 445supermag at 12:46 PM on February 24, 2010 [19 favorites]

Omerta!
posted by mecran01 at 12:46 PM on February 24, 2010

Wait a minute:

It was pulled from the site within hours--

I think you mean "two months."

AFP:

Each executive was given a six-month suspended sentence for violation of privacy, Google spokesman Bill Echikson said.

The video, which was uploaded to Google Video in 2006, showed four teenagers beating and insulting a 17-year-old disabled student infront of about a dozen bystanders in Turin.

Google Italy, which is based in Milan, eventually took down the clip nearly two months later but not before the video caused a national outrage.

None of the executives were involved in the production or uploading of the video, but prosecutors argued that as it had topped a most-viewed list it should have been noticed sooner.

posted by russilwvong at 12:47 PM on February 24, 2010

So phone companies are liable when somebody makes a threatening phone call, right?
posted by kipmanley at 12:49 PM on February 24, 2010 [5 favorites]

If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content?

I'M LOOKING AT YOU, GUTENBERG!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:50 PM on February 24, 2010 [42 favorites]

Gutenberg is small fry. What about Roger Ailes?
posted by blucevalo at 12:52 PM on February 24, 2010

The video was totally reprehensible and we took it down within hours of being notified by the Italian police.

I'm assuming the difference between the "within hours" and the "2 months" time frames for taking the video down are that. It was up on the site for 2 months, when Google was notified of the video by Italian police, they took it down within hours. It would be interesting to see if the video was popular that entire time or exploded in popularity right before being taken down, I would imagine the latter. Anyone have any evidence either way?
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:53 PM on February 24, 2010 [2 favorites]

So, um, what happened to the teenagers who actually committed a crime?
posted by Saxon Kane

We also worked with the local police to help identify the person responsible for uploading it and she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:54 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

So, um, what happened to the teenagers who actually committed a crime?

They were identified, prosecuted and did community service. From the Google Blog:

"We also worked with the local police to help identify the person responsible for uploading it and she was subsequently sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved."
posted by GuyZero at 12:54 PM on February 24, 2010

I don't see this as ridiculous. If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content?

MetaFilter: Post Comment For Review.
posted by phaedon at 12:55 PM on February 24, 2010 [2 favorites]

It was pulled from the site within hours--

I think you mean "two months."

It was pulled from the site within 732 hours.
posted by mazola at 12:55 PM on February 24, 2010 [2 favorites]

If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content? If you don't want that kind of responsibility then don't get into that business. People shouldn't be ale to just wash their hands of the responsibility to avoid harming others.

The medium for disseminating any kind of content already exists, it's the Internet itself. If Google decides it's not going to host content that people want to share online, then somebody is going to come up with an alternate way of sharing it. People who think Google isn't doing enough to moderate their content should be happy that YouTube is the most popular video clip sharing site, rather than a P2P or otherwise completely unmoderated version.
posted by burnmp3s at 12:55 PM on February 24, 2010 [2 favorites]

kipmanley: So phone companies are liable when somebody makes a threatening phone call, right?
And the power company too, cause the person who said the threatening thing was probably in a lit room when he said it. Also, the construction business that built him a house to live in. Clothing company? etc?
posted by toekneebullard at 12:56 PM on February 24, 2010

Does anyone know why one of the four Google employees (who was apparently in charge of the Google Video) wasn't convicted yet someone like the formal chief financial officer was? They all didn't know about it, so how'd he get aquitted?
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:58 PM on February 24, 2010

If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content?

Just like those damn telephone and telegraph companies offering up that new medium which lubricated millions of shady stock and bond deals. And people bartering wood later used for smoke signals to help a raid. And selling animal skins used for war drums. No offering up a rock to pound for the gathering the clan, either, unless you're prepared to take a club for Ogg eating a slice of bad mammoth afterwards.

Man, life could be simple. Nasty, brutish, and short are merely small, unfortunate side-effects.
posted by mdevore at 12:58 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

Just imagine the things mathowie is liable for. I'VE SAID TERRIBLE THINGS IN QUIET THREADS NO MODS WERE WATCHING! ENJOY ITALIAN PRISON!
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:59 PM on February 24, 2010 [8 favorites]

Wait, I'm confused as how Google is at all responsible for this. What's the Italian court's justification?

No, seriously, can someone explain?
posted by reductiondesign at 1:11 PM on February 24, 2010

None of the executives were involved in the production or uploading of the video, but prosecutors argued that as it had topped a most-viewed list it should have been noticed sooner.

Was this possible at the time of the videos rise to the most watched charts? Because if so then isn't everyone who watched the video, but did not flag, more culpable?
posted by edbles at 1:13 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

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.' -- slashdot anonymous coward
posted by jeffburdges at 1:20 PM on February 24, 2010

I don't see this as ridiculous. If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content? If you don't want that kind of responsibility then don't get into that business. People shouldn't be ale to just wash their hands of the responsibility to avoid harming others.

Well, because then we end up living in a world where all means for dissemination of content are restricted to content approved by their owners, operators, manufacturers, and so on. We end up without free speech, because the channels through which we speak effectively get closed off due to liability fears.

It's easy to imagine this happening in Italy as a result of this. All it takes is for Google to decide not to allow video uploads from that country because the risk to them is now too great. So you can't upload awful stuff like the video mentioned in this post, but you also can't upload your political activism video any more either.
posted by FishBike at 1:21 PM on February 24, 2010 [4 favorites]

If I were Vivi Down, I'd be far more concerned that the kids who actually committed the assault got off with nothing but some community service. Messed up priorities much?
posted by Caduceus at 1:25 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

It's probably good that Google is actually as "not evil" as it is.

I mean, if I were the vindictive type, I might be tempted to say: fine, you've made your point. It's not too expensive to do business in Italy. Google no longer exists in Italy. All Italian IP addresses are blocked from all Google TLDs, and there is no more Google.it.

Google has around 60% market share in Italy. It could basically wreck the entire Italian ecommerce sector.
posted by generichuman at 1:26 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

* It's now too expensive to do business in Italy.
posted by generichuman at 1:27 PM on February 24, 2010

Watch out /b/tards! The Italian police are coming for you!
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:27 PM on February 24, 2010

I wonder who's benefiting from this, with celebrity, prestige, or most likely, political power. I wonder who's feeling ambitious.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 1:43 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

ssg: They received suspended 6 month sentences. There is a world of difference between a 6 month suspended sentence and "6 months to a year of jail-time". It's still ridiculous, but this FPP is misleading.

When I was pulling this post together I swear one of the things I was looking at said 6-12 months in jail, but that didn't meet the Italian requirement of a minimum 3 year sentence to actually lock them up, so they got 6 months suspended. I didn't include that link in the FPP and now I can't find where I got that from, so sorry about that. I got that wrong.
posted by BeerFilter at 1:50 PM on February 24, 2010

And people bartering wood later used for smoke signals to help a raid.

My guild just uses Ventrilo.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:00 PM on February 24, 2010 [4 favorites]

Does this balance the Italian prosecutor who asked for jail sentences for the US spies in the rendition case? I remember the courts asking for more than 10 years for the CIA heads in two Italian cities.

Thank you Italian courts for making our third world Mexican courts look incorruptible and fair.
posted by dirty lies at 2:04 PM on February 24, 2010

oddman : I don't see this as ridiculous. If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content?

So if you, the owner of a billboard company, don't take down the racist graffiti promoting violence which I put up on one of your signs quickly enough, you should be held responsible?

And, if so, who decides what "quickly enough" is?
posted by quin at 2:15 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

I suppose that's what Google Italia gets for not branching out into smoked meats.
posted by turgid dahlia at 2:25 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

I don't see this as ridiculous. If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content?

What were the effects of this content, other than presumably making it easier to identify and prosecute the people responsible?
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 2:41 PM on February 24, 2010

> So phone companies are liable when somebody makes a threatening phone call, right?

> I'M LOOKING AT YOU, GUTENBERG!

> Just like those damn telephone and telegraph companies offering up that new medium which lubricated millions of shady stock and bond deals.

> So if you, the owner of a billboard company, don't take down the racist graffiti promoting violence which I put up on one of your signs quickly enough, you should be held responsible?

> And the power company too, cause the person who said the threatening thing was probably in a lit room when he said it. Also, the construction business that built him a house to live in. Clothing company? etc?

Actually, the technological differences between a) Google and b) a newspaper or the builder (or inventor) of some other physical object are meaningful:

Gutenberg can't uninvent the printing press, and the construction firm that builds a home doesn't monitor what happens inside that home after it is sold, let alone have the power to vaporize the inhabitants of that home.

Google Inc., by contrast, is just the owner of a database-- it can a) easily view whatever is inside its namesake database, and b) easily alter its contents. Any database entry can be dropped, added, or modified in seconds. And Google changes the contents of its database, and the display order of its contents, daily.

To the particulars of this case:

Google argues that it took down the videos two hours after the Italian police contacted them; great.

What I don't know is whether Google received any notice of this in the two months prior to that-- if so, it should probably have acted after it was first notified (rather than waiting for the cops), and certainly so, if it was notified by a representative of the kid being victimized.

And, yes, the Italian justice system is involved, so who knows what is actually animating this affair.
posted by darth_tedious at 2:44 PM on February 24, 2010

> People who think Google isn't doing enough to moderate their content should be happy that YouTube is the most popular video clip sharing site, rather than a P2P or otherwise completely unmoderated version.

You know that customer service rep, the one who had to look up your account and take down your credit card number when you had to call in and complain that one time?

The one who seemed to take forever?

Hey, he didn't sell your credit card number or post it on the Web.

BE HAPPY.

Oh, and your mechanic just cheated you into paying for an unnecessary $600 repair.

On the other hand, he could have cheated you into paying for a $1200 repair.

BE GRATEFUL.
posted by darth_tedious at 2:55 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

darth_tedious: this is hardly the same thing!

Google's between a rock and a hard place - overall, if they take down videos, or if they don't take 'em down, someone's going to be mad.

I think "best effort" is a perfectly reasonable thing to aim for and otherwise "financial damages".
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 3:24 PM on February 24, 2010

Ina similar vein, but with the opposite outcome, an Australian court recently ruled that a major ISP, iiNet, was not liable for copyright infringements by its customers using torrents.

That story probably deserves a FPP.
posted by wilful at 3:40 PM on February 24, 2010

> Google's between a rock and a hard place - overall, if they take down videos, or if they don't take 'em down, someone's going to be mad.

Sometimes the parties are of different status.

I'd say that the demands of unwilling participant in a video outweigh those of the party that put the video up, or ten million hungry YouTube viewers.

Likewise, I'd say that the demands of a content creator protesting the promotion of infringement on his/her copyright outweigh the demands of the pirate putting up the infringed work, or the ten million hungry fans of that illegal copy.

> darth_tedious: this is hardly the same thing!

lupus_yonderboy: Please explain what the "this" is. Thanks.
posted by darth_tedious at 3:42 PM on February 24, 2010

...the Italian court ruled that three of the four - chief legal officer David Drummond, global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer and former CFO George Reyes - are guilty, and sentenced them to 6 months to a year of jail-time.

They received suspended 6 month sentences. There is a world of difference between a 6 month suspended sentence and "6 months to a year of jail-time". It's still ridiculous, but this FPP is misleading.

Exactly ... if only the OP had read through the Ars Technica article to which he/she linked:

"...Drummond, Fleischer, and Reyes were all found guilty of privacy violations and received suspended six-month jail sentences."

posted by ericb at 3:53 PM on February 24, 2010

I thought you could only be sentenced to Italian prison if you were captured by Italian Spider-Man. (EU approval still pending on Turkish Batman.)
posted by No-sword at 3:54 PM on February 24, 2010

If you provide a medium for the dissemination of content, why shouldn't you be partially responsible for the effects of said content?

Partially? They got a harsher sentence than the people who actually committed the crime.
posted by dirigibleman at 3:55 PM on February 24, 2010

How exactly would one call Turkish Batman? Project a giant donair image into the nightsky?
posted by mannequito at 4:18 PM on February 24, 2010

if only the OP had read through the Ars Technica article to which he/she linked

I read all of that one and about 7 others too. I didn't link to all of them. I made a mistake when I went with those words, but I swear I read that somewhere. Again, I'm sorry, but this post isn't really that much about their sentence & I admitted the error on my part so there's no need to derail about that anymore, is there?
posted by BeerFilter at 4:27 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

Italy is a nation of organized crime, and its courts have no authority whatsoever in my mind.

Nice dismissal of 60 million people there.
posted by ersatz at 4:42 PM on February 24, 2010 [2 favorites]

me: “Italy is a nation of organized crime, and its courts have no authority whatsoever in my mind.”

ersatz: “Nice dismissal of 60 million people there.”

Who dismissed 60 million people? I hardly think 60 million people work in the Italian Courts, or even in the government in general.

I have very close friends who are Italians and live in Italy. They agree with me on this point, and are considering expatriation because it's so bad. It's a simple fact that corruption in Italy is so bad that it's unbearable for a lot of people. This doesn't mean the country is evil, nor does it mean that Italians are inherently bad people or anything. On the contrary, it's a great nation with a noble history and a magnificent legacy. But lots of people - many Italians included - are pretty fed up with the state of the place at the moment. It's frankly pretty tragic, considering what Italy ought to be capable of.

Don't confused sad frustration with a nation I care very much about for flat dismissal. You can't ignore the sad state of the Italian government and justice system in particular, and for those of us who value the nation of Italy this is a very unfortunate fact that deserves comment.
posted by koeselitz at 5:06 PM on February 24, 2010

– and: I agree with my friends there when they say they have no idea what to do about it. I don't think it's necessarily up to the people any more, at least not directly, and that's part of what's unfortunate. I can admit that I was a bit frustrated when Berlusconi won the last election, but he's a small fraction of the problem, and the larger parts aren't things anybody gets to choose.

Italy is in a bad place, but I don't blame its people. It's just a sad fact of the circumstances. But there are a lot of crooked bastards in certain positions of power right now. It's hard to know what to do about that; the power structures of the justice system in particular make only a very strange sort of sense, and are independent in such a way that they're both the last sliver of hope for reform in government and a source of great corruption at the same time. So it's hard to decide what path to take; should we leave those structures in place to try to dismantle the old order, thus allowing the sort of stunts depicted in this post? Or pull them down, and risk pulling everything else down with them?
posted by koeselitz at 5:11 PM on February 24, 2010

When we last had a thread about Italian justice, I was advised to read The Monster of Florence . I would recommend that anyone asking here, "Why are they [Google] being held responsible?" read the book. It certainly opened my eyes.

The politics behind police investigations in Italy will shock you. They manipulate the press, fabricate elaborate conspiracy theories and only give a passing glance to actual evidence. Emotions run high.

In this case I imagine Google was seen as this big, faceless evil entity. Easy pickings.
posted by misha at 5:38 PM on February 24, 2010

koeselitz, I focused on the 'nation of organised crime' and made that passive-aggressive comment instead of writing something longer. Had I written it, it'd look pretty similar to your follow-up comments. I misread you, sorry.
posted by ersatz at 5:49 PM on February 24, 2010

So, how is Google supposed to know if the video is real or faked? Context? What if next time the perpetrators claim (in the little youtube blurb) that it is an out take from a PSA on abuse of the handicapped? Does google have to send out private investigators to see if all the people pictured are actors?
posted by 445supermag at 5:52 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

misha: “The politics behind police investigations in Italy will shock you. They manipulate the press, fabricate elaborate conspiracy theories and only give a passing glance to actual evidence.”

Well, what's sort of amazing, I think, is that investigations are generally run by judges. We'd see that as conducive to an insane amount of bias here, but in theory it's supposed to grant a judge more 'independence' to do a better inquiry. Every bit of trouble Berlusconi's ever had has stemmed from this policy, which means that a judge can actually go ahead with an investigation without him blocking it by using his connections. Of course, if a judge has a vendetta or decides to go on some sort of a crusade, she or he can easily forget justice, and at that point, there is no official way to rein them in.
posted by koeselitz at 8:10 PM on February 24, 2010

At the risk of getting piled on ...

There is no logical correlation between electricity or the telephone and broadcasting media. Electricity powers things, including telephones (a new woe during outages now that I have a fiber optic line) and TVs and computers. It does not itself carry messages. The telephone is for communication with one other person or a small group at best.

Newspapers (such as the ones that once employed me), books (such as the ones I edit and publish) magazines, radio, TV, and the Internet all share the capacity to commit mass communication. Why are the Old Media held to a higher standard than New Media? It wasn't a TV network's fault that Janet Jackson had a wardrobe malfunction, but look who got the lion's share of the blame. I keep all sorts of legal issues regarding fair use and libel in the middle of my mind as I work, because if I don't it's my butt.

I benefit from the legal stance that my ISP and my blog hosting company aren't responsible for what I do online. I benefit that anyone commenting at one of my sites can call for the violent overthrow of the government and I won't be held responsible.

But this is, on the face of it, inequitable. Is it that the Internet is exciting that gives the massive corporations mining it a get-out-of-jail-free card? Or is it simple surrender to the logistical nightmare of wading through everything in a timely manner?
posted by bryon at 8:12 PM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]

Old media are not held to a higher standard. Content creators are held responsible for their content in both old and new media. The difference is that there is no line in old media between content creator and content distributor. The Jackson wardrobe thing was not the TV network's fault, but it was the network's program, filmed and broadcast by them. An editorial process makes you partially responsible for the content as you are participating it its selection. This is still different from google and youtube.
posted by Nothing at 9:10 PM on February 24, 2010

It wasn't a TV network's fault that Janet Jackson had a wardrobe malfunction, but look who got the lion's share of the blame.

Oh, so you do agree that it was deeply stupid that local affiliates were fined millions of dollars for something they couldn't possibly have anticipated.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:02 PM on February 24, 2010

You know, generally corporate personhood is given short shrift here on the blue, but this is the consequence of taking it away.
posted by dhartung at 11:12 PM on February 24, 2010

>
So, how is Google supposed to know if the video is real or faked? Context? What if next time the perpetrators claim (in the little youtube blurb) that it is an out take from a PSA on abuse of the handicapped? Does google have to send out private investigators to see if all the people pictured are actors?

Google doesn't need precognition, or pre-screening, or investigators. It simply needs to respond swiftly to allegations of intrusions of privacy (e.g., videos of unwilling, non-public figures) or copyright violation.

If an allegation of illegitimacy is disputed, then the uploader can attempt to defend the legitimacy of his/her claim.

Where allegations of legitimacy conflict, then a graduated process of ever greater formal intervention should begin. First, ID verification of the respective parties, so that their claims can be compared against basic, transparent guidelines. If that's not enough, then cops become involved. If that doesn't settle things, and there is still ambiguity, then lawyers come into play.

Remember, in most cases, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of a work that's posted online is fairly obvious. What's unclear, and inconsistent, is the process of enforcing these usually-rather-straightforward claims.
posted by darth_tedious at 11:42 PM on February 24, 2010

Gesu fucking cristo, I just love waking up to yet another facile Italy-is-batshit-insane-n-corrupt thread.

Wait, I'm confused as how Google is at all responsible for this. What's the Italian court's justification?

The politicians that be are currently trying to set New Media on par with Old Media in terms of accountability. Libel here has a broader interpretation, and in theory I can sort of get behind the whole "you can't just make shit up and pass it off as true" idea.

In practice, the idjits in power wouldn't know a mouse from Topolino and are using this stand in a fairly fascist manner. This is my surprised face.

Just off the top of my head, they've been trying to make it mandatory for bloggers to register in the Journalists' Registry and hold you accountable for what people post in your comments (because you are the "publisher" and therefore you should also play the role of "editor").

So it's in this last vein that they've gone after Google, more or less.

But per usual, the actual workings of the Italian court system get ignored in favour of the attention grabbing headline. Google has at least 2 more appeals before this sentence is set in stone. As a matter of fact, it's pretty de riguer that the first ruling gets tossed out upon appeal, or if your lawyers are good at stalling ad infinitum, gets tossed out because the statute of limitations is up (Helllloooo Berlusconi....)

There are many here who daily make a stand even in small ways in the name of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, against the Mafia, against the corruption, against the societal problems that to some extent are found everywhere.

So go ahead and continue to make the facile "FIRST POSTS!!!" snarks about corruption, mafia & Berlusconi. You forgot greasy, sleazy, masochistic, racist, and turf-diving. That panorama of your lower colon must be absolutely breathtaking.

And koeselitz, I would encourage your expatriation-leaning friends to reconsider; things aren't going to change on their own, eh?
posted by romakimmy at 12:13 AM on February 25, 2010 [3 favorites]

Boy, am I glad I previewed before posting! Romakimmy said everything, but everything I was about to, and in a far more entertaining tone. Amen, sister!
posted by aqsakal at 1:46 AM on February 25, 2010 [1 favorite]

romakimmy: “And koeselitz, I would encourage your expatriation-leaning friends to reconsider; things aren't going to change on their own, eh?”

Heh. Thanks. I'll do that.

“There are many here who daily make a stand even in small ways in the name of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, against the Mafia, against the corruption, against the societal problems that to some extent are found everywhere.”

Absolutely. And I think it's unfortunate that these people don't get the press they deserve. The whole system works against this, really; the press, of course, is controlled by people who don't want it known that there are those who disagree with the reigning powers, and other European press sources take the same tone I see in the Economist - an understandable one which angrily decries those same reigning powers, which unfortunately doesn't leave lots of room to discuss the opposition.

What's interesting to me, as I said above, is that there are some contradictions that make it difficult. You clearly know more about this than me, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've heard the independence of the judiciary is sort of a blessing and a curse; on the one hand it leads to sort of crazy results like this Google verdict, but on the other hand the last line of people who are actually legally fighting the Berlusconi regime's silliness are in the judiciary taking advantage of those same independences.
posted by koeselitz at 1:48 AM on February 25, 2010 [1 favorite]

Well, we're getting a little far from the original post here, but:

[T]he press, of course, is controlled by people who don't want it known that there are those who disagree with the reigning powers is a huge generalisation: there is a thriving press which will not shut up and be obedient, starting with the country's second best-selling daily La Repubblica and the second best-selling weekly news magazine from the same stable, l'Espresso. Even the leading daily Corriere della Sera is far less obsequious to the "great powers" under editor Ferruccio De Bortoli than it used to be in the past. A new daily called Il Fatto Quotidiano is very critical of the system and is selling well. The problem is, as adamvasco's link explains, that 82% of Italians depend only on television for news, the highest percentage in the EU, so these publications are speaking to only 18% of the population. To illustrate that further, I mentioned above the "leading daily" and the "second best-selling daily": both expressions assume we don't count the real best-selling daily Gazzetta dello Sport.
posted by aqsakal at 2:42 AM on February 25, 2010 [2 favorites]

koeselitz, I won't pretend to have a first hand knowledge of the Italian judiciary system. Hell, I have enough problems wading through the legal mumbo jumbo in one law (milleproroghe how I hate you...) let alone the intricacies of the judiciary side. So from a long time ex-pat's simplistic POV:

In many respects it doesn't differ that much from the US judiciary system¹: those with the most money often win.

In this particular Google case, yes precedent has been set , but Precedent isn't written in stone until it reaches the cassazione level. And with a 6 month suspended sentence, pfffft - that sucker's going to get tossed quick on the appeals circuit.

Yes, the inquisitorial system is ripe for abuse. But appeals don't just happen for guilty verdicts here, so that tends to function as a check. Plus it's not like one judge does the whole kit and kaboodle - there's investigating judges, tribunal judges, popular judges, magistrates....etc, etc.

Lately, Berlusconi's declared war on the judges² and vice versa. Well, I guess the judges fired the first shot since the Supreme Court tossed out that nifty little immunity law he passed at the beginning of his most recent term. He says they overstep their Constitutional powers; they point out the nice little conflict of interests he has going.

Tit meet tat. And the populace is stuck with the machinations of an extremely elderly ruling political class.

I think one of the most irritating mindsets I encounter here is the defeatist "Well, that's a good idea, but you can't do that here/it'll never work/Italy doesn't work that way." The unobedient press is a good step away from this mentality as is the smaller unsung gestures I mentioned before.

But if I had a Euro for every time I have heard one of those phrases or about moving abroad to a more "civilised" country, I could fucking damn well buy Mediaset lock, stock n' barrel off ol' Plughead himself.


¹ Not that I have first hand experience there either, but Yay Social Studies
² As expat shorthand, I tend to lump them all together under the "Judges" heading of my brain.
posted by romakimmy at 5:10 AM on February 25, 2010 [2 favorites]

Oh, so you do agree that it was deeply stupid that local affiliates were fined millions of dollars for something they couldn't possibly have anticipated.

In July 2008 an appelate court found for CBS and overturned the FCC fine. Howver, in related news this week: CBS Faces New Challenge Over Janet Jackson Exposure.
posted by ericb at 9:09 AM on February 25, 2010

Old media are not held to a higher standard. Content creators are held responsible for their content in both old and new media. The difference is that there is no line in old media between content creator and content distributor. The Jackson wardrobe thing was not the TV network's fault, but it was the network's program, filmed and broadcast by them.

The difference is FCC jurisdiction. Newspapers are held to journalistic standards, purportedly, but they can be sued for libel and slander. Online media sources are not necessarily journalistic nor are they regulated by the FCC, but legal standards still apply.
posted by krinklyfig at 10:09 AM on February 25, 2010

You know, generally corporate personhood is given short shrift here on the blue, but this is the consequence of taking it away.

This is inaccurate. Companies which are not corporations can be sued or have legal action taken against them. That the Italian government went after specific individuals has nothing whatsoever to do with corporate personhood.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:18 AM on February 25, 2010

Mafia crime is 7% of GDP in Italy, group reports - The New York Times Organized crime represents the biggest segment of the Italian economy, accounting for €90 billion in receipts, according to an annual report issued Monday (2007).
posted by psyche7 at 11:35 AM on February 25, 2010

I'm not even starting the discussion about how things are looking from here. Suffice it to say that everyone working with/on internet (myself included) here is completely baffled.

I'd just like to point whoever might be interested to this post about the ruling and the law involved (disclosure: from a friend who also happens to be a law teacher and an expert in internet law, with particular regard to UGC).
The post might be a yiny bit technical. On the other hand, despite what is told in the media, with a nice side of the usual "hurf-durf-spaghetti eaters", court rulings are technical things and should be treated as such.

footnote 1: A couple of the killings described in The Monster of Florence happened basically in my backyard, less than a mile from where I live.
footnote 2: As involved and complex and infuriating and everything as it may be, keep in mind that that book is just one side of the story. So is the Knox case, as portrayed by the US media; I had the sense to skip that thread altogether.
footnote 3: Romakimmy: kudos for getting pissed at the snark. Double kudos: I was born here, you chose it.

posted by _dario at 3:36 PM on February 25, 2010

a yiny bit
tiny, even.
posted by _dario at 3:37 PM on February 25, 2010