Its that long standing argument over who's responsible for the content on YouTube. Neither side wants to give way as it sets a precedent.

Why they dont remove illegal content?

The youtube business model has always been in sketchy legal territory, nothing new here, just another business negotiation.

Question of fact:

Does the president of google dot anycountry have the power to change google listings within that country? Does anyone else have this power?

Does the judge know the answer to the question? Does the judge care?

Does the judge know the answer to the question? Does the judge care?

It's not really the job of the judge to care, he is supposed to uphold the law but I suppose risking the liberty of an employee is how you roll when your corporate ethos dictates that laws/litigation are “just a business negotiation being conducted in the courts.”--Eric Schmidt.

This isn't the first time a Brazilian court has threatened to jail a local googler, the first time a higher court over ruled an arrest so I think google probably feels pretty comfortable with the risk (I don't know how the local googler feels).

I didn't mean care morally or emotionally. I meant, does the judge know or care whether the arrestee can have had personal responsibility in the act he's being arrested for? Not like "I wasn't there", which has to be proved in court. More like arresting the mayor because the city council did something illegal, without first finding out what the legal relationship is between the two. (I picked this example because in the US it can go either way-- but within any given city it's one way or the other.)

Probably a registered agent kind of thing, the person responsible for corporate behavior. Something for the lawyers to sort through I suppose.

The Telegraph is reporting that the googler has indeed been arrested but will not remain in custody. I hope they are giving him hazard/hubris pay for the grief.