French law already makes all of it's citizens responsible ( law has been in place since about 1998 ) for all content on their sites whether or not they are "user generated" ..It's a variation on the laws for publishers ( here they are called "editors" ) ..
ie ..what you put or allow to be put in a book, movie , site is your responsibility ..applies equally to blogs and fora ..

Thats why there are moderators ..

The Italian case isn't the first ..

The french freehost Altern was found guilty on appeal in 1999 ( the case had been brought originally in 1998 ) for allowing nude photos of Estelle Hallyday ( the then wife of french star Johnny Hallyday ) to be posted on the personal pages of one of it's clients ..the host was ordered to pay Frs 400,000.oo ( about $70,000.oo) damages ..and to remove the images ..report at the time on french legal site juritel [juritel.com] here ..

Sorry ..the transcript doesnt exist in English ..

but the gist was .."your internet business model cant work without infringing the law ? ..you think that should make it exempt ? you think that absolves you? you think it would be too complicated ? ..Tough ..monitor it or face the legal consequences ..or close it down " ..<Altern ..which was in essence a one man band "Valentin Lacambre" hoster using ads to pay bandwidth and make his profit closed not long after ..> ..

We in Europe know this can happen and act accordingly if we are professionals ( because part of being a professional means acting responsibly and knowing the prevailing laws ) .. and not basing our business models on things which break and contravene existing laws ..in Europe or elsewhere ..

G has been running European offices ( and particularly French offices ) since around the time of that case ..and that case made prime time news here for weeks ..Johnny Hallyday and his immediate circle are viewed here as Elvis was in the states ..Mega news ..Mega celebrities in the francophone world ..

So G's French staff must know of this case ..and thus corporately so do G and the MountainView lawyers ..

So G could hardly claim that they didnt know that European courts take a different view on hosters liability to the " we cant run it and make money from the ads if we have to look at all the stuff we host" defence ..

It's often said here and elsewhere that the internet has no laws ..untrue ..It has the law of you can do it until you get caught..and the law of the internet and IT companies with the deepest pockets can do what they want ..in the name of expediency and /or profit ..usually for their CEO's ..at the expense of customers or citizens

Not in Europe they cant ..

thankfully ..

IMHO, that court decision is very wrong and even a restriction on freedom of speech. Everybody should be free to say or post (or record on video) whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, and for whatever reason they wanted.

Expression is not a crime.

Either you have freedom or you have not. There's no middle ground.

Claus..that would have to mean that childpron, realtorture movies, rapepron,and negationist and hatecrime sites would be OK ..and that they could be posted on youtube as well ..

Thats what no middle ground means ..You want that ? ..I don't .

It seems that an overwhelming number of folks would be needed to review each video before posting each video...given that it takes the full duration of a video to view it and some extra time to do the work to approve it...humans are not infinitely fast.

And extra humans are required to "review the reviewers" to ensure no shenanigans occur in the reviewing process...and on down the line.

And even now, we (or developers, in any case) are in some tumult over a "censorship" affair going on with "adult" or racy apps being published for iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad. So censorship has other costs and fine lines, too: a two-edged sword.

To those who claim it isn't impossible just daunting I want to know how you would check content against every other piece of known content to make sure it didn't violate anyone's copyright.

How do you know my posts weren't taken verbatim from a University professor's dissertation? Do you think WebmasterWorld is negligent in not checking these posts? If I were indeed copying from someone when making my posts and they complained, do you think that they should be able to sue WebmasterWorld for my actions? How would WebmasterWorld know to check that dissertation?

I say it is impossible and claims of otherwise come from a place of misunderstanding.

Besides, Google isn't a "web host", they run advertisements on the pages, in the videos, they are commercializing the content.

So how is that different than a webhost?

A webhost profits from it's user's content being transferred and hosted publicly on their servers. It shouldn't matter how they profit, they profit and they are the ones putting the content online... Just like with Youtube.

Youtube's computers host it's users content.

GoDaddy's computers host it's user content.

Why should YouTube be held responsible for it's users' content and not GoDaddy?

[edited by: Demaestro at 5:37 pm (utc) on Feb 24, 2010]

Nothing is impossible, it's just daunting.

Sure, some videos are easy. Most are incredibly difficult (music clips, copyrighted images) that regular people would have a tough time with. Also, the best "original" content usually has people in it that did not sign a form approving to be in the video...how would you deal with that? There's just no way that every video would be watched and a perfect decision could be made. Either too many videos make it in and they get sued or too few videos get approved and people give up on YouTube.

It's daunting to the point that it would be impossible for Google to pull off while still making a profit(which with YouTube, they aren't).

Regarding YouTube and copyright material... have you noticed they seam very able to spot copyright music, and provide a link enabling you to purchase the music? The technology for removing or flagging potential copyright material is there. They only seam to want to use this technology to generate revenue.

This goes back to an earlier argument I've made that YouTube thrives off of copyrighted material...Google doesn't want it all removed. It's much easier to bank off of it until someone complains, remove it, and wait for someone else to load it back again. This cycle loops forever.

Now of cause Im against Googles way of handling Privacy and the collection information about each user, like 1984 book, but how should they watch every video uploaded thats impossible, so I think this time its not really what we want to see Google convicted for there 1000 other cases which are more important.

If it's impossible for them to check the content posted on Youtube, then how is it possible for them to calculate each and every penny they receive from clicking on sponsored results on Youtube pages?

Their likely explanation: "We are working on a robot that will be checking posted videos for us." If they want to save money by not hiring humans to do the job and try to create everything automatic to save money instead - that is their choice and liability.

From Google's chief legal officer:

"This verdict sets a dangerous precedent," Drummond said in a statement. "(It also) imperils the powerful tool that an open and free Internet has become for social advocacy and change."

I think Google believes that everything on the Internet should be open and free, regardless of who created it or what it is?

I think Google believes that everything on the Internet should be open and free, regardless of who created it or what it is?

Yes, that's in a way their business model. They can last much longer than their competition providing a free service AND losing the money; once the competition dies, they either buy them out or let them die and gain even bigger market share.

There are a couple of questions that need to answered first.

1. Is Google a media company or a utility?

Yes, America's Funniest Home Videos needs model releases. But the phone company is not responsible for monitoring "content" distributed over the phone and the satellite TV provider is not responsible for what some network puts on the airwaves.

Then we have ISPs, webhosts and Google. ISPs are more like the phone company and Google is more like a broadcaster, with webhosts in the middle, relatively speaking.

The question is, on which side of the line do they fall.

Google would like to believe that the people who upload videos are broadcasters and Google is like DishTV. The Italian courts clearly believe that Google is more like NBC and the people who upload content are filmmakers only.

The root problem is anonymity. If only people with verified identities were able to upload video, Google could probably wash their hands and just say "You upload it, you're open to prosecution."

If it's impossible for them to check the content posted on Youtube, then how is it possible for them to calculate each and every penny they receive from clicking on sponsored results on Youtube pages?

You obviously don't understand how programming works if you think that tracking clicks is in the same realm as comparing video, print, musical and spoken word in audio/video clips to every known other known content and law on the planet including other pieces of content waiting to be reviewed on other sites you don't control.

Every country has its Laws and every country must enforce those laws when it comes to their Citizens’ Privacy, Security and Well Being. I think it's called an Obligation.

How do you know my posts weren't taken verbatim from a University professor's dissertation? Do you think WebmasterWorld is negligent in not checking these posts?

Somehow You are a TRUSTED Senior member of this community?

You obviously don't understand how programming works if you think that tracking clicks is in the same realm as comparing video

Doing programming I understand how it works. My point was they most likely made money on an illegal video (and I doubt they would refund that money to anyone).

How do you know my posts weren't taken verbatim from a University professor's dissertation?

I knew it! Now I suspect everyone of post stealing. :(

My point was they most likely made money on an illegal video

Currently they lose money. But it's all about gaining control of the traffic and keeping them in a Google circle of Google sponsored ads.

still when reading all this I think, the User who uploads a video still have to be the main target for any violations of any law, be cause it can not be that user just can upload anything he wants and the company that offers this free service have to pay for it, User have to think about what they upload that priority one and not just focus on those has with a bad reputation or money (google).

Interesting and valid points here, both about the Model Disclaimer form and the checking of all content. But I am still not convinced about this ruling and it pushes me even more into the direction that copyrights should be modified for the digital age. The old system is unable to cope with the setting of the Internet and the amount of digital media we produce. How does it make sense to convict people in this case: maybe Google as a company has failed, but the individual people can't be held responsible.

Maybe a system of user flagging should be put in the law. There needs some innovative solutions to the copyrights and user generated content problem.

The uploaders were prosecuted ..those who made the video were in court long ago ..no-one is just focusing on the hosters google..just on their lame/corrupt/irresponsible business model ..host illegal or copyright material ..surround it with ads ...allow unlimited unmonitored anonymous uploads ..allow unlimited anonymous access to it for download..then claim that there is too much stuff uploaded to monitor ..

because uploaders expect it to be available ..or it's not economical to filter ..and it's not our responsibility ..doesnt cut it ..in Europe ..Good

but the individual people can't be held responsible.

Sure they can..their salaries are the result of the corporate policy that let this happen ..and some of them were actually partly responsible for that corporate policy decision ..

Hiding behind the "inc" ( or the "it's all our fault and therefore no-ones fault" ) is not an honorable nor a legally tenable position

The old system is unable to cope with the setting of the Internet and the amount of digital media we produce

Then maybe people and google should produce less crap ..and do less to encourage the production of mountains of digital crap ..ads on or around crap ..doesnt change it's status from crap ..and ads around stolen goods or infringing doesnt make using or hosting of stolen or infringing goods legit.

First, this case wasn't about copyrights. There is a body of law dealing with copyright violations, and in many jurisdictions there are established procedures for ensuring prompt removal from a website. In addition, technology is evolving to detect copied text, photos, etc. that at some point might be able to automate screening of content uploads. (E.g., text content, photos, or videos that showed a high-percentage match to content elsewhere on the Web might be rejected, or put into a special queue for approval.)

This case hinged on a privacy violation. Privacy can be violated in a variety of ways, including videos, photos, and text. (And, of course, there are differences in privacy laws between jurisdictions.) There is effectively no way of automating the detection process, as in some cases privacy is in the eye of the beholder (and the judge). One person's hilarious news item is someone else's privacy violation.

What is needed in each jurisdiction wanting to regulate privacy is something similar to the DMCA Notice. That would give aggrieved parties a mechanism for notifying site operators and getting problematic content removed. If the site owner doesn't respond appropriately, only then should further legal steps be allowed.

And there was was I ( and the courts ) thinking this case was about the hosting of an uploaded ( by the perpetrators ) of a "movie clip" of a criminal assault on a handicapped child ..the "invasion of privacy" was the only thing that the childs family's lawyers could think of at the time that would get G into court ..

host illegal or copyright material ..surround it with ads ...allow unlimited unmonitored anonymous uploads ..allow unlimited anonymous access to it for download..then claim that there is too much stuff uploaded to monitor ..

yep you nailed the youtube business model, and they still can't make any money off of it. How come the law isn't breathing down google's neck trying to get them shut down and hammer them with fines.

how is youtube any different then a pirate p2p torrent network? Do torrrent sites just need to add a bunch of user generated fluff to make it all good?

It seems like 2010 didn't really start well for GOGR on a positive note. The DO RE ME of "isa good fa ya, cause it's always and we know why but won't tell ya" seems to start back-firing....

I am gonna trow 1 in, as the bold-headed dude did(me 2 btw): This is just another backslash with a word PRIVACY attached to it, decade of 200n-20nn, and coming attractions of the end of....

I have mixed opinions here so this is my brain dump...

1) I think the penalty should have been directed at Google, not individual employees. They should have been shielded.

2) This content is basically only being "hosted" by Google so they should comply with DMCA and other copyright laws, but not to the same level of standard as if they themselves shot the video and uploaded it.

3) While Google should moderate videos randomly and more heavily on new accounts, they can't know every copyright holder in the world... they should however have a better system where legit copyright holders can submit proof of copyright and have triggers sent when their brand is used without permission.

4) As incrediBILL said, model releases should have to be signed and uploaded for anyone in any video on the account. Blanket releases may be good enough so you don't have to do it each time if you have the same series of people in your videos.

5) adult content should be flagged as such and blocked by anyone under 18, you should have to prove you are over 18 to get an account... Driver's license, passport... I'm not sure but there has to be a way to do it preferably with a third party so there is no incentive to "cheat" to get more signups also so Google doesn't have our personally identifying info (HaHaHa I know, I know, but passport or Driver's license are VERY personally identifying).

6) A single violation in uploading copywritten material or adult content not flagged as such should result in some suspension / temp ban with detailed reason for why the ban occurred, second infraction should result in a 7 year ban by IP, Mac address, email etc.

7) they should have a well staffed 24/7 dept that purely handles removal requests and employs a ticket system so you know how long a video is improperly up after they have been on notice. If proved the video was in violation Google should have to turn over all revenue made from the clips plus additional damages for every hour the video remains online after some grace period, let's say 2 business days.

any other ideas?

how is youtube any different then a pirate p2p torrent network?

from a strictly user perspective, youtube is totally cool. you take one of those youtube to mp3 converters and rip every song you can think of. if some material is unavailable because of country access restriction, simply tunnel your ip with one of those tunneling services to get access to the content.

way better than napster back then! unlimited choice, unlimited bandwidth, unlimited ease! it's so cool! thank you, google! you make our life more pleasant.

and as i always say: enjoy it while it lasts! and unbelievably it's still running after all those years. must be the "big g" effect - google may do everything!

:P

When other companies and or their execs or employees break laws or set up sub divisions which break laws ..
they get taken to court ..they get fined ..they are made to change ..and sometimes some people go to jail..

Why should Google be treated different ..or is everyone just terrified that the adsense / be an adwords broker / advise on how to rank in G ./SEO gravy train might stop if G had to obey laws ..

how is youtube any different then a pirate p2p torrent network?

They make an effort to remove offending content and they respect take-down notices. They have tools to flag offending content. They encourage unique content, and they allow large content providers a way of posting their content on their terms. For example the Associated Press has a channel on Youtube. Major music labels have channels to release music videos.

I would bet that some music labels make more off some videos on Youtube then they do selling them to MTV.

But why bring up the good when it is so easy to make bashing statements like "lame/corrupt/irresponsible"

I guarantee you that if 15 years ago any of you were involved in a project to build a site that would allow amateur and "wannabe" filmmakers a place to upload videos, view videos, search videos, that you would be excited and that the words lame/corrupt/irresponsible wouldn't come up.

I think Youtube is/was a great idea for a website and it's popularity and the fact that humans break rules shouldn't be it's undoing.

Humans break rules, not even the death penalty stops people from breaking rules. To insist that a system be made that won't ever allow for any human to break the rules isn't possible and doesn't exist anywhere on this planet.

I bet you all anything that even if you had to go to Youtube head quarters and submit your passport in person to be granted a Youtube account you would still have people uploading stuff that isn't theirs and it would still be a place where copyright infringement was hard to control.

Do torrrent sites just need to add a bunch of user generated fluff to make it all good?

No, Torrent sites DO NOT host ANY content and it isn't "all good". Torrent sites track content that lives on it's users computers. So when you download something from a torrent site you only receive a file that tells your torrent client where the files are. When you get the actual file, you are really getting pieces of the file from many different users, that is why it has been tough to takedown torrent sites, they technically aren't providing anything other than a directory to files on it's users, so it is the users that are violating, not the torrent site and in many cases the individual users haven't provided the full file, only parts of it.

If google hosts a video, it is just a host. If Google pro-actively seeks advertisers and monetizes the video with ads - including overlays, popups, and prerolls - then google is no longer a host, it is now the publisher and partial-producer of that content. It is no longer an innocent bystander, it is now an active participant in that content.

This is no different than ABC being responsible for what is on it's network primetime shows that are produced by 3rd parties.

> Regarding YouTube and copyright material... have you noticed they seam very able to spot copyright music, and provide a link enabling you to purchase the music?

This depends on the rights holder submitting fingerprint files of the music (and maybe it would work for film/tv show soundtracks?). The rights holder can either ask youtube to block the content or try to monetize the content with a link to a music download. I've read that the monetization (with YouTube taking a cut) is not very profitable so groups like WMG decide to block the content. Googlevideo has the same system but blocks the entire video.

I think as far as forums go where users are by and large posting text opinions I think the forum owners should benefit from common carrier status where they should just remove controversial material. I agree though with Incredibill about videos/pictures that normally model release forms are required if you are monetizing the material. This is the case for istockphoto etc. and I'm surprised that Google gets away with this.

I think Google believes that everything on the Internet should be open and free, regardless of who created it or what it is?

Really? Google believes everything on the internet should be open and free huh?

Have you tried scraping Google results lately?

"This verdict sets a dangerous precedent," Drummond said in a statement. "(It also) imperils the powerful tool that an open and free Internet has become for social advocacy and change."

*cough* except us *cough*

and I'm surprised that Google gets away with this.

google gets away with this, because in the last years they have managed to implant their brands as the friendly "don't be evil" common property in our heads. they entice us with their free services and bend us to their will.

example: tonight on german public television zdf, an invitation for viewers to send in their own video clips via youtube.
now, this is official television publicly funded by all charge payers. plus they got an own internet infrastructure. and yet they find it perfectly normal and legitimate to advertise google's brand as platform for sending in videos.

not many brands manage to creep so naturally into the regular tv program without complaints, yes without even being noticed by viewers as commercial. it's outrageous.

model releases should have to be signed and uploaded for anyone in any video on the account

seems utterly fanciful to me: suppose, say, there's a great crowd in a street?
Funniest Home Videos is showing people in what to many could be detrimental light; so those who are doing daft things might complain, sue. Hence need for such forms

As I recall w photography, releases needed for people in advertising shots; way less so otherwise. [Being in public place important]

If model releases indeed really needed, do you think you'd see much tv news, or sport, or travel documentaries and so on?

Have you had a video on youtube that was accepted for advertising?
I have - and bit of a faff, with me sending info saying it was original, no copyright music or images I didn't have rights to use.
Had another rejected, as google not satisfied re copyright for an image (tho I did have permission to use it).
- so to me, not so surprising re youtube using money Higher standards before ads placed than on great majority of sites, I reckon.
But indeed that's not the issue with Italian case.

I believe it's impossible to successfully vet all content before publishing.
Think of even China: one newspaper editorial, or somesuch, was found to contain a message if you read characters diagonally. Videos could be made like this; and it's then for content provider to be notified, see how they respond.
Some kind of "coarse" sieving may prove possible.
But if you want it automated and comprehensive, be careful what you wish for - video uploads automatically checked by face recognition software, speech recognition software, is more Orwellian than Brave New World.

w youtube, I've notified google of a video of mine being used on another channel or two: promptly removed.