RSS
Did Google Ignore A Takedown On The Italian Video?
from the making-things-a-bit-more-complex... dept
As the arguments continue over the Italian verdict convicting Google execs of criminal privacy violations for a video on Google Video, there is one interesting tidbit that's now coming out. One issue is that the judge has only released the verdict, not the full reasoning -- and that's leading to an awful lot of speculation. But now, Stefano has alerted us to reports claiming that Google had received an earlier takedown request which it had ignored. Throughout the case, Google had insisted that within hours of receiving a takedown notice from the police, it had complied. But, apparently, the prosecutors are claiming that there definitely was an earlier takedown.
So now we go back to our post from last week about the law, and whether or not Google had sufficient notification for a takedown. Part of the problem appears to be that current EU law does not clearly state the process for a valid takedown. In the US, at least, with the DMCA, the process for what counts as a valid takedown and how it needs to be delivered is extremely clear. And that way you can guarantee what is, and what is not, sufficient notice that requires a takedown. In this situation, where the law is not clear, you are left with a problem of interpreting what counts as sufficient notification.
But that brings us to the second issue: even if Google was notified, but somehow missed the notification, does that then mean that it makes sense to convict three totally unrelated executives of criminal charges? It still sounds like that would be a massive leap. At worst -- if we take as a given (and I'm not saying it's true, but for sake of argument, let's say it was true) that Google was sent a takedown notice which it ignored -- I would think that it would make sense to fine Google and require it to have a clear process for handling takedowns. To go beyond that and criminally charge and convict three totally unrelated execs because it took a second notice to get the video taken down seems pretty ridiculous.
So now we go back to our post from last week about the law, and whether or not Google had sufficient notification for a takedown. Part of the problem appears to be that current EU law does not clearly state the process for a valid takedown. In the US, at least, with the DMCA, the process for what counts as a valid takedown and how it needs to be delivered is extremely clear. And that way you can guarantee what is, and what is not, sufficient notice that requires a takedown. In this situation, where the law is not clear, you are left with a problem of interpreting what counts as sufficient notification.
But that brings us to the second issue: even if Google was notified, but somehow missed the notification, does that then mean that it makes sense to convict three totally unrelated executives of criminal charges? It still sounds like that would be a massive leap. At worst -- if we take as a given (and I'm not saying it's true, but for sake of argument, let's say it was true) that Google was sent a takedown notice which it ignored -- I would think that it would make sense to fine Google and require it to have a clear process for handling takedowns. To go beyond that and criminally charge and convict three totally unrelated execs because it took a second notice to get the video taken down seems pretty ridiculous.
I have an idea...
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
I’m looking for research...
Who Are App Developers?
The Growing App Market
I have a business...
Why 50,000 Monthly Active Users Weren't Enough To Stop This Company From Pivoting, With Spun Co-Founder Scott Lindenbaum
Why and How Developers Use Mobile Payments: Infographic
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Jim
Also, to convict these three execs of criminal charges wouldn't they have to prove that they are personally responsible for ignoring the takedown notice (that may or may not have come), ie they made the decision?
This sounds like the Italian gov making a move to be noticed in the digital world to me. What better way to draw attention than to convict 3 execs o one of the biggest companies in the world!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Thought I would try this again
I mean, if this doesn't go through, I imagine there's a reason why I work where I do and you're moderators as you are.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just that you have to do something... I think.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Thought I would try this again
Techdirt Moderators now don't like paying subscribers?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thought I would try this again
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
To base most of your case on "I called on day 1 and received no word back to any effect. On day 30 I followed up and it was pulled down in 2 hours" To me it sounds like the day 1 notification got lost somewhere and if anything why did the person wait for flipping ever to follow up? If I took forever in my job to follow up on something important I WOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE. Not the person I contacted once and sat on my hands for weeks assuming they got it... read it... and did whatever.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This is the Italians
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
There are better places to vaction...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Thought I would try this again
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Ambiguity
A vague law allows for the broad brushstroke of prosecution. That way they can punish somebody if they can't get the real criminals.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There are better places to vaction...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Did the execs capture said scene in video and upload it?
You can convict someone for murder if he committed the crime.
You can not convict someone of murder because he built the railing from which the victim was pushed off, or because he paved the street below with bricks instead of fluffy pillows.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
In the italian system, if the judge, during a trial, has notice of a new/different crime that is not related to that trial, he is obliged by law to open a "branch" on that particular case and to pass the satte of the facts to an other judge who will investigate on this new crime and, if necessary, with a new trial.
So, relating to this case, a crime charge against the uploaders is something different (and will have a different trial) , and must not be confused with the trial to G. and the G.-execs, whether they can be found guilty or not.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is the Italians
try again, lad.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is the Italians
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is the Italians
and not in france
and not in germany
and not in spain
and not in sweden
and not in holland
and not in europe
just in the U.S.
such a coincidence, ain't it?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is the Italians
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment