Comments:Three Google executives found guilty over Italian video
|Why is Google Responsible?
|14:03, 6 April 2010
|20:10, 18 March 2010
|Obviously the google weasels will get clean and free in the end
|17:41, 1 March 2010
Besides for the impracticalities involved (there are thousands of videos uploaded daily, imagine if each had to be screened by a human), does Google even have such an obligation. I am unfamiliar with law and the details of this case but I would imagine that uploaders to Google Video or any other video site would be required to accept that the company accepts no responsibility and any illegalities would be the responsibility of the uploader. Furthermore Google showed interest in cooperating with the law as they removed the video within two hours after being asked to. Without going into the discussion of whether or not this is an inhibition of Freedom of Speech the question to ask is: Why is Google Responsible?
Well, Google is responsible to a certain extent. Google's responsibility stems from its corporate values and the fact that even kids use it. But they also have control mechanisms and that is why they take down videos that are reported as offensive (after human screening). It is a self regulating system based on usage. If you see it and find it offensive, report it.
But this high profile case aims to pass a legislation that can so easily be misused. Who will screen? How many people will be needed to police the net? These same questions were raised for the radio and the TV and it resulted in government regulation.
As far as this case goes, there is no absolute answer here - No right or wrong. It was an offensive video, but they removed it when they received the complaint. On the basis of this doubt alone, these guys should be left off the hook. The internet is the last bastion of free speech. It needs to stay that way.
There is no threat here to the internet or freedom of speech. This isn't the groundbreaking case Google wants to make it up to be.
The two main factors of this case are this:
A) Google was asked by the individual (or a representative thereof) to take the video down.
B) Google's refusal to do so netted them a measurable amount of profit
The question this case is answering is not whether or not an ISP or hosting provider is responsible for any and all content uploaded to their servers, the question this case answering is whether or not, as an individual, you have a right to demand that your identity/image/likeness cannot be used FOR PROFIT by a company without your consent. The answer is (thankfully) a resounding 'No'.
This has been law in the US for over a century (if I have my history right). This is why Depends™ Adult Diapers cannot just take your facebook photo and use you as the new face of bladder control.
I think that an executive of a company as big and famous as Google and Google the company itself should be held to a higher standard, therefore in my opinion they are more guilty than the girl who uploaded the video. I don't think this is censoring at all, anyone can find crap like that all over the internet. That does not mean we should have it showed down our throat by a giant corporation, we got chans and American TV for that. they would take it down if it was a video of a rape or a murder, I don't see how this case is different. Google told the programmer of gaia (an open Google earth project) to remove their code from the internet, but I can't tell Google to remove a video of me? That is bullshit, I'm seeing Google morphing into Microsoft right before my eyes. My judgment: GUILTY!
I don't usually drop in on this stuff, but it's absurd that Google is taking the stance that this is a violation of freedom of speech, when they actively censor videos of much less questionable content.
They're not trying to argue that being made to remove the video was a violation of freedom of speech. What they are saying is that this verdict implies that they would have to pre-screen every single video that is uploaded to Youtube in order to make sure it is acceptable before allowing it to go live on the site, which is a ridiculous and unfeasible demand given how popular such sites are. Then there might as well be no site for all the chance there is of getting your uploaded video to be visible within a sensible timeframe.
The problem is that if site hosts are to be considered responsible for the content uploaded to it by their users, their incentive for allowing anyone to upload things is gone. For fear of being sued, that functionality becomes extremely restricted or gone entirely. This is where the curtailment of freedom of speech occurs - by taking away venues for people to speak.
"What they are saying is that this verdict implies that they would have to pre-screen every single video that is uploaded to Youtube in order to make sure it is acceptable before allowing it to go live on the site, which is a ridiculous and unfeasible demand given how popular such sites are."
Exactly: bullshit. All this ruling states is that (just like here in the US for the last 100 or so years), a company may not use your image, likeness or identity for profit without your consent.
If you value your freedom (of speech or otherwise), you'd do well to think before you curse a law that protects the very essence of that freedom: the right to privacy.
Stop blabbering on about the internet. This case has little (if anything) to do with the internet, and Google is not the internet. Google is a for profit internet-based company. This ruling protects the rights of the individual over the interests of corporate America, which is exactly as it should be.
For Google to have won, they would've had to do one of two things:
A) Not produce ad-revenue by advertising alongside the video B) Remove the video when the person whose likeness was shown asked it to be removed
This is hardly, nay, absolutely nowhere near, the type of censorship or curtailment of the 1st Amendment that you and the rest of the GoogleFUD campaigns are trying to sell everyone. Currently, any content hosting provider (ie - YouTube) has to take down all disputed videos pending review (if requested), and no precedent was set in this case that hasn't already been set in the US for a century.
The only question that was answered in this case (and answered here in the US, again, a loooong time ago) is whether or not YOU are the IMPLICIT COPYRIGHT HOLDER of YOUR LIKENESS and IDENTITY.
Sorry to say it kids, cause I know you're trying really hard, but you have to stop believing everything the loudest voices are saying to you. Sometimes they don't have your interests in mind, but they want you to think they do.
After so many years of US occupation of Italy I find it hard to believe that the US fist is far from the neck of Italian authorities. And the US has a tradition of getting out people who are guilty for rape and murder. Freedom of speech invoked by the country with most political prisoners... that's cute.