Clueless State AGs Attack Google Over YouTube Videos Instead Of Pursuing The Criminals Who Made Them

from the seriously,-guys? dept

We've been writing a fair bit lately on the incredible anti-innovation, anti-free speech views of various states' attorneys general, who seem to be doing anything they can to get themselves shoved into the headlines by making completely bogus threats against internet companies for things their users do. The latest takes this level of pure cluelessness to new heights. Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt win our award for "extremely clueless politicians of the week" for their latest misguided, mis-targeted, harmful and backwards attack on YouTube and Google. Basically because some people somewhere have used YouTube to post videos and these AGs think this will get them into the headlines, they're blaming Google.
After viewing a series of videos promoting dangerous activities such as the sale of illegal drugs, fraudulent passports and sex trafficking on YouTube, Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt asked YouTube's parent company, Google, to provide more information on how much the company has profited from videos.
Right. I'm wondering when Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt are going to demand that Ford explain why bank robbers use their cars as escape vehicles, or when Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt are going to demand that AT&T explain why extortionists have used their phone services.

Let's go through this nonsense step by step, because it's really beyond the pale. First off, it takes a special kind of cluelessness for two attorneys general, who are supposed to help their states enforce the law, to be shown videos that disclose crimes being committed and rather than go after those committing the crimes, instead decide to blame the tool that revealed the crimes to them. This is beyond blaming the messenger. This is blaming the manufacturer of a video camera because it was used to tape a crime which the AGs failed to stop. It's beyond a head in the sand approach. It's putting your head in the sand and then blaming the sky for shining light on your ass.

Second, there's an important bit of federal law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides pretty clear safe harbors for service providers such that that they are not liable for actions committed by their users. In other words, there's no legal issue here for the AGs to grandstand about, even as they're hoping to get a personal exception to Section 230 that just applies to state AGs. Threatening companies over things for which they are not legally liable is extreme bullying by politicians who have way too much power.

Third, if the videos themselves are illegal, then there is a clear process by which those who found the videos can seek to get them taken off the site. If the videos are not illegal, as seems likely to be the case, then they're protected by the First Amendment, and these attacks from government officials seeking to stifle free speech really seem to raise serious questions about the competence of these Attorneys General to enforce the law in their own states, when they appear to be somewhat unfamiliar with both Constitutional basics and the federal laws that bind them.

Fourth, as it stands more than 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute. If there's some magic way that these politicians think that each and every one of those videos can be pre-vetted to make sure nothing that they don't like gets uploaded, they don't understand basic math. The alternative, of course, is not to have the ability to have any user-generated content exist online at all. In other words, the "solution" is to kill what makes the internet and things like YouTube useful. Way to go, Jon Bruning and Scott Pruitt. I'm sure your constituents will be thrilled to know that your big accomplishment was to make sure that you killed YouTube and all of their ability to make and share their own content.

In other words, this is an extremely misguided move by two state politicians who are making themselves look incredibly foolish, because someone spread some moral panic FUD about "drugs and sex on YouTube!" And who's responsible for that? Ah, yes, an astroturfing group out of Washington, DC designed to create moral panics around Google:
Digital Citizens Alliance Executive Director Tom Galvin, who presented a detailed report to the National Association of Attorneys General on YouTube last month, made the following remarks after the letter was released:

"Google has allowed thousands of videos to exist on YouTube that offer drugs, prostitution, forged passports, counterfeits and content theft. Worse, they have profited from them by running ads in conjunction with these videos. Hopefully, the attorneys general will be able to get answers others have failed to get. Namely why such an important, otherwise great company is putting profit over the safety of Internet users. When Google finally takes steps to ensure these dangerous videos are gone for good from YouTube, the Internet will be a safer place."
Okay, well, here's the obvious response: Digital Citizens Alliance Executive Director Tom Galvin has allowed bogus, censorious, anti-innovation screeds to be sent by states' attorneys general. Worse, they have promoted this FUD-filled exercise with PR spam blasts to reporters trying to generate bogus faux-moral panics to promote their own anti-innovation agenda. Hopefully, the public and reporters will be able to get answers that others have failed to get. Namely, why such an obvious bullshit astroturfing group is putting anti-innovation, anti-free speech policies into the mouths of states attorneys general, and doing so in a manner that only leads to it being more difficult for law enforcement to track down actual criminals. When the Digital Citizens Alliance finally takes steps to ensure that it stops these bogus moral panics in targeting third parties and driving the actual crimes further underground, the internet will be a safer place.

As you can see from the full letter that these guys sent, they're demanding answers to various questions, almost all of which appear to be based on flat-out ignorance of both how the technology of offering a platform for user-generated content works, as well as the automatic nature of internet advertising. Attacking a company by showing your own ignorance of the very basic technology, enjoyed by millions of people, doesn't seem like a particularly wise strategic political move by these attorneys general.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Mark Harrill (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 6:20am

    Digital Citizens Alliance

    Wait if its wrong for Google/YouTube to profit from these videos, isn't it wrong for people to watch them and thus generate the revenue in the first place? Since Digital Citizens Alliance has found all these videos, they must have watched them, thus creating ad revenue for Google. Sounds like they are partners in the furtherance of a criminal enterprise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:10am

    My guess is that Hollywood and the RIAA are funding these AGs. They want a state exception to Section 230. Then they'll start suing Google for theft or misappropriation in state courts.

    Or the AGs are simply retarded attention whores.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Alt0, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:11am

    incoming OOTB rebuttal ...

    in 1...2...3... (wait for it)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
       
      identicon
      out_of_the_blue, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:33am

      Re: incoming OOTB rebuttal ... Ah, advance publicity!

      I like your post twice: because you've nothing else to say, and help me with advance notice. -- I'm the most pre-commented. -- So, thanks, my fanboy. ... See, you don't even say enough to indicate whether you agree with me or not, so I'll just assume you're my fanboy!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Gwiz (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:56am

        Re: Re: incoming OOTB rebuttal ... Ah, advance publicity!

        Once again you have mistaken the meaning of the laughter, Blue.

        We are laughing at you, not with you.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Alt0, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 10:16am

        Re: Re: incoming OOTB rebuttal ... Ah, advance publicity!

        Meh...I have nothing else to say because I care nothing about the topic. Basically a few politicians making asses out of themselves yet again...
        I simply knew the word Google in the title would draw you like a magnet to pick on Mike and rant on...
        I agree with some things you post, this is true. Mostly not however (sorry). At my age I can no longer be considered a Boi either. I do at times find you entertaining... thats at least something right?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:15am

    Somebody is confusing Google with a publisher, and I wonder who keeps suggesting that they are... it wouldn't be the RIAA and MPAA by any chance?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:21am

    "Based on search results, it appears that an inordinately large number of videos containing potentially objectionable content were removed in the week following a June 7, 2013 article in the USA Today detailed these issues. Please describe any and all measures used to remove these videos and explain why the videos were removed."

    I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that by "objectionable" they mean "illegal". Surely they are not demanding information about videos that merely "objectionable" but are covered by freedom of speech.

    So, either:

    The AG's, upon finding these objectionable videos, told YouTube to take them down, and that is why they were taken down, rendering the question silly... or:

    The AG's searched for and found these videos, but chose NOT to tell YouTube to take them down. That is, unlike YouTube they had direct knowledge of illegal activity, but chose not to act.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:23am

    Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

    Google is a business, not a "platform". Statute is not an absolute shield to responsibility under common law. Google exists only by permission of society and can be required to do some policing, just as other businesses, pawn shops say, are for the public good. This isn't burdensome, nor apparently has Google taken any action, else wouldn't be a problem.

    Google is not a good corporate citizen: it's working to gain monopoly in advertising; it's spying on you full time and feeding that info "direct" to NSA; it's increasing authoritarian and "monetizing" aspects to control users; it's keeping $45 billion offshore to escape US taxes.

    Mike is a pro-Google corporatist. You see his view of laws here, which is practically the purpose of corporations: to escape all responsibility to society while still getting the money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:43am

      Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

      Google exists only by permission of society and can be required to do some policing,...


      If society wanted it, sure. Fortunately, a couple of grandstanding AG's do not equate to "society".

      It seems to me that the majority of "society" doesn't care to blame the tool manufacturer. Like it was noted above, we traditionally don't blame car manufacturers for the uses of their autos or gun manufacturers for the uses of their weapons.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
         
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:02am

        Re: Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

        Let's repost what you censored, as it was (of course) 100% spot-on correct:

        "Google is a business, not a "platform". Statute is not an absolute shield to responsibility under common law. Google exists only by permission of society and can be required to do some policing, just as other businesses, pawn shops say, are for the public good. This isn't burdensome, nor apparently has Google taken any action, else wouldn't be a problem.

        Google is not a good corporate citizen: it's working to gain monopoly in advertising; it's spying on you full time and feeding that info "direct" to NSA; it's increasing authoritarian and "monetizing" aspects to control users; it's keeping $45 billion offshore to escape US taxes.

        Mike is a pro-Google corporatist. You see his view of laws here, which is practically the purpose of corporations: to escape all responsibility to society while still getting the money."

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Gwiz (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:20am

          Re: Re: Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

          Let's repost what you censored...

          I didn't censor anything. As a matter of fact, I respected Blue's right to incorrect or ignorant speech by responding to it with more speech.


          ....as it was (of course) 100% spot-on correct.

          Not in my view. And I explained why in my above comment.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          JMT (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

          I wish idiots like you would stop reposting comments I've already read.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:50am

      Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

      I can't speak for Mike, but as for me, it's not so much that I'm pro-Google; it's more like I'm pro-Internet. I don't want precedents that result in EVERYTHING on the Internet being pre-screened and actively monitored.

      "Statute is not an absolute shield to responsibility under common law."

      Legally, it sure can be an absolute shield, depending on how the statute is written. Morally, no, it does not absolutely shield from responsibility.

      "This isn't burdensome"

      That depends on what exactly they are required to do. Prescreening every video would be an unreasonable burden. And the types of videos described here are tougher to find than copyrighted videos - they can't use ContentID to automatically find them because they don't already have a copy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:53am

      Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

      And you're a pro-RIAA corporatist.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 9:00am

      Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

      Google exists only by permission of society and can be required to do some policing


      And they are, and they do. There's even a well-oiled, established procedure for this. That the AGs apparently want to circumvent that isn't Google's failing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Skeptical Cynic (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 10:01am

      Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

      Google is not a platform nor is YouTube. But they provide for a profit a platform people can use. Semantics don't make a good argument.

      Also rants not pertinent to the discussion just make you look like a fool.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Alt0, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 10:26am

      Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

      And see... you at least do not disappoint Blue!
      I voted "funny" twice on your post once because it made me laugh and again because you again faulted Mike for having opinions. BTW send me a circle invite on G+ buddy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Gwiz (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

        I voted "funny" twice on your post....


        For future reference, clicks on the insightful, funny or report buttons are not cumulative for individual users. It's an on/off toggle type switch.

        Your second click actually removed the first click.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Niall (profile), Jul 5th, 2013 @ 7:14am

          Re: Re: Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

          He possibly actually realises that, since it's true of most sites that I'm aware of. Could be very subtle sarcasm. (Can sarcasm be subtle?)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      JMT (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:13pm

      Re: Another rant from Mike defending his "Precious".

      "Google exists only by permission of society..."

      And "society" seems to be pretty damn happy with the services Google offer.

      "This isn't burdensome..."

      I would love to hear your proposal for pre-screening the "100 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute". It should be good for a laugh if nothing else.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Gwiz (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:25am

    It's putting your head in the sand and then blaming the sky for shining light on your ass.


    Best analogy evah!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Baldaur Regis (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:42am

    I'm trying to remember the saying that goes something like 'believe, but check your source'.

    These two AGs seem to be part of a largish group of people whose lives would be immeasurably improved by learning to use the internet for non-lineal searches (e.g., checking the sources of their sources). Unfortunately, the best place to learn about using the internet...is on the internet. Perhaps their children will do better.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:42am

    OH OH OH! I got a good one, let's get them to ask AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint how much they make from criminals using their services.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Doug D (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 9:30am

      Re:

      Don't forget to ask Wells Fargo and Chase about criminals banking with them. Once a person has been accused of a crime (that's close enough to a conviction, right?) the banks should have to document how much they have made from that criminal's accounts and why they weren't actively working to stem the criminal deposits.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Lord Binky, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 10:02am

        Re: Re:

        Oooo.. can we throw in casino's as well?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 4:04pm

        Re: Re:

        On one hand, I'm pretty sure that banks will call the FBI/IRS/DHS if they think that you're using their banking services for money laundering.

        On the other hand, we didn't prosecute Bank of America when it turned out they had criminals working for them, so it's clear that our priorities are screwed.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lord Binky, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:46am

    In that last quote I'm really confused how a video offers me things such as a forged passport. Am I missing some willy wonka device?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:54am

      Re:

      All they need is a link somewhere to WeHaveABunchOfForgedPassportsSoBuyThemToday.com. They could put it in the video description or they could put a clickable annotation in the video itself.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Lord Binky, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 10:00am

        Re: Re:

        But then it'd be the post office delivering a forged passport and a person/group offering the passport through a website. The video is just handing out the address like a phone book.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:52am

    so, hands up those who know the answer to this mind-boggling question?

    it's because it's much easier to throw all the blame at an entity that hasn't done anything wrong, so is standing in full view, than to have to conduct some investigations to discover who the actual perpetrators are and then take legal action against them.

    i have no sympathy for Google from one point of view. it has sat back and let too many things wash over it too many times. it is inevitable that it is going to get the blame for things it hasn't done (as well as things it has done) because it has no fight, it is seen as a pushover!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 8:55am

    How nice of them to not include any links, which allows us to speculate on the connection between the illegal activity and the sidebar advertisements "profiting" on them :

    Videos promoting the sale of counterfeit merchandise that include sidebar advertisements for weight loss strategies.


    which allows us to conclude that overweight people mostly buy counterfeit merchandise.

    I learned something new today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    naprotector, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 9:14am

    Are they not?

    Are these criminals that are posting these videos doing the public and law enforcement a favor?

    A video lesson on how these illegal acts are accomplised, which cand result in raised awareness, methods and procedures to make the process much more difficult, and making it harder to fool the public?

    Nah, we cannot be that smart or they cannot be that dumb.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    madasahatter (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 9:28am

    AG idiocy

    Their excuse is probably "protecting the children". As Mike noted the real problem not the service provider but with the users who posted the content. If the content shows a crime or is itself illegal it is the user/poster who is responsible not a third party such as Google.

    This smells like someone blaming the messenger (Google) and not the sender for the message. Also, most of the posters have modest means and pursuing each one is very laborious and not likely to net much. Suing Google theoretically has the potential of a large payout relative to the costs and is not very time consuming compared to suing thousands or millions of individuals.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 9:57am

    Jurisdiction

    I think these AG's, and the others that have come before, might be behaving in this way because they lack jurisdiction to go after the actual perpetrators of the supposed crimes.

    If the perp's are not in their state, they can't get them. For interstate crimes, they need to rely on the DOJ, and those folks are much too busy trying to read all that email they collected and prosecuting folks for negligible or even non-existent crimes.

    Google on the other hand has some sort of presence in every state, or they wouldn't be able to do their drive-abouts that collect the street view and open wireless locations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 10:59am

    I demand a law that gives me safe harbor when I want to rob a bank.

    Current laws are stifling my free speech and innovative work.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    iambinarymind (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 11:25am

    More Moronic Attorney Genitals

    Can we please make these Attorney Genitals obsolete?

    Step #1: Stop putting up with theft/extortion (i.e., "taxation"), as that is how said Attorney Genitals are paid. With there being no choice in the matter, the Attorney Genitals have no reason to do a good job or to think with reason/logic.

    I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange. Exchanges where if the customer isn't happy, they can take their business elsewhere...and Attorney Genitals such as the one's described in the story would not stay in business very long if they were to engage in such boondoggles of absurdity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nom, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:14pm

    Silly Mike, It's not like blaming the manufactures of video cameras, it's more like blaming the manufactures of televisions they used to watch the videos.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    From the what-ain't-no-country-i've ever-heard-of , Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:14pm

    Get real

    --- Right. I'm wondering when Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt are going to demand that Ford explain why bank robbers use their cars as escape vehicles, or when Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt are going to demand that AT&T explain why extortionists have used their phone services. ----

    Come on. You're better than this........ a site you maintain is different from a product you sell.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:19pm

      Re: Get real

      a site you maintain is different from a product you sell.


      In this context, how so? I fail to see why a site should be held responsible for crimes committed by it users when a product manufacturer is not held responsible for the crime committed by its users.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        From the what-ain't-no-country-i've ever-heard-of , Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 3:40pm

        Re: Re: Get real

        In this context, how so? I fail to see why a site should be held responsible for crimes committed by it users when a product manufacturer is not held responsible for the crime committed by its users.

        When you sell a product it comes under the exclusive control of the purchaser. Louisville Slugger is thus not held liable for the many crimes committed with its baseball bats. Same for Ford cars, AT&T phones, etc.

        However, a website has servers which hosts content. Much like if you own a building and the law requires that you keep it up to code.

        Understand that I'm not making the argument that the decision to go after Google in this instance is wise. But, Google takes down videos based on the supported allegations of copyright infringement by third-party content distribution companies. It stands to reason that if you are enforcing a private party's copyright-right then you should monitor for compliance with criminal law. (Again, maybe the videos themselves aren't illegal, but that is a separate issue.)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 4:02pm

          Re: Re: Re: Get real

          Much like if you own a building and the law requires that you keep it up to code.


          Actually, it's not like that. That analogy would apply if you were arguing that there should be a legal requirement to properly maintain the servers and the software.

          A better analogy is this: if you own a building and rent it out, you have no legal obligation to search the building regularly for evidence that it is being used for illegal purposes. Same with YouTube.

          It stands to reason that if you are enforcing a private party's copyright-right then you should monitor for compliance with criminal law.


          But YouTube already does treat these two things the same way.

          YouTube takes down content once someone has filed a DMCA notice. They also do the very same thing when someone points out that a video violates YouTube's TOS (and the TOS prohibits all kinds of videos of the sort that are at issue here.)

          The difference between the two is ContentID, which is YouTube doing a huge favor to the major content companies. They are not legally required to do this (and shouldn't be). It barely works for detecting copyrighted content, and would be technically impossible to work even as well as that for detecting illegal actions. At least until we've perfected AI.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            From the what-ain't-no-country-i've ever-heard-of , Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 4:24pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Get real

            A better analogy is this: if you own a building and rent it out, you have no legal obligation to search the building regularly for evidence that it is being used for illegal purposes. Same with YouTube.


            Whatever, I'm not sure we even disagree. You're analogy is better than comparing a YouTube video to a car used as a getaway vehicle, BUT there are specific laws that govern landlord-tenant law, which deal with privacy... which is not what we're talking about with a public YouTube video.

            Google makes money off of the advertising associated with the content on its website, and so putting aside a bigger debate about UGC, Google has an implied duty to monitor its site in some fashion. (If you disagree with this, then would you disagree with it in the context of someone posting child pornography or bomb-making instructions?). And, Google obviously does not disagree. Because it DOES monitors its site. And since it polices its site for civil violations against a third party, it should police its site for criminal violations in the public interest.

            Baseball bats, cars, and phones...or any consumer product is an entirely different case. The landlord-tenant analogy doesn't work because tenant's have a right of privacy in their home. A better analogy would be dinner guests, who, like YouTube users are invited, and operate with the implied consent of the owner. I don't know whether I would be found guilty if my houseguests did drugs outside, in the open, but I'm not going to take the risk to find out.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 1:55pm

    MPEG-LA

    I think MPEG-LA has big questions to answer for as they licence codec that YouTube (Google) is using, Manufacturers of the camers which use very same codec.

    You don't know where this will all end up!

    I say ban all MPEG/H264/H265 and for once start thinking about the children.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Bergman (profile), Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 5:24pm

    If Google/YouTube are responsible for what their customers send through their networks, wouldn't the same be true for state governments (and their officials, such as a state AG) being liable for people committing crimes within the state, using state roads and so forth?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      From the what-ain't-no-country-i've ever-heard-of , Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 5:42pm

      Re: Bergman

      First, Google hosts the content (and makes money off of it). It is not just "sen[t] through their networks," as would, you could argue, be the case with torrenting or cloud-sharing.

      Second, no one on this forum has advocated for holding Google liable an infringing video. So even assuming your analogy to roads worked--and it doesn't because you can't sue public entities, in a lot of circumstances, for public policy reasons--it would not apply to this situation.

      But, if, for example, you owned a private road, and you made money off of the use of that road, and then you also enforced third-party rights in your operation of that road (say, you worked with a boating company which you're road had access to), then I would argue you have at least some duty to monitor for criminal activity.

      I am not saying that Google should "responsible for what their customers send." I am saying that, especially given their aggressive enforcement of third-party rights through DMCA, they may have an implied duty to monitor their website and take down videos that violate criminal statutes.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Jul 4th, 2013 @ 2:16am

        Re: Re: Bergman

        I am not saying that Google should "responsible for what their customers send." I am saying that, especially given their aggressive enforcement of third-party rights through DMCA, they may have an implied duty to monitor their website and take down videos that violate criminal statutes.

        The courts are *abundantly* clear that there is NO implied duty to monitor. In both CDA 230 and DMCA 512 cases, the courts are pretty clear on this.

        There may be *some* responsibility to take down certain content upon notification (and even then, some courts have found that under Section 230, it's never the service provider's fault), but that's very different than a proactive duty to monitory.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          From the what-ain't-no-country-i've ever-heard-of , Jul 5th, 2013 @ 10:50am

          Re: Re: Re: Bergman

          What you are saying may be legally, technically, true. But Google is in violation of the spirit of the law in enforcing third-party IP rights against its own users.

          In the post-PRISM world, why is the tech community giving Google a pass?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2013 @ 9:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Bergman

            Please explain this contravention of the spirit of the law and how it relates to enforcing third party IP rights.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 3rd, 2013 @ 9:34pm

    I use AdBlock, so I never see any ads in YouTube videos

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Sheogorath (profile), Jul 5th, 2013 @ 9:24am

    Dumb pipes

    I guess there's no point in arguing to Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt that YouTube is simply a dumb pipe that delivers the content that's uploaded to it by criminals since certain politicians seem to be dumb pipes that deliver the nonsense provided to them by lobbyists.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    MrAnon (profile), Nov 7th, 2013 @ 12:12pm

    These AGs are sooo right! But they stop too soon! Google needs to ban videos on YouTube like Ylvis' because "What Does the Fox Say?" teaches littl'uns that animals talk and creates dangerous psychological instabilities in the poor wee bairns. Videos showing video game cheats & exploits should also be banned because those other &$^(@&*$ players are kicking my butt!

    But wait, there's more! News videos must be banned, on YouTube and network 'casts because they might lead me to believe that we live in a dangerous world where taunting a wild animal in a zoo might get my face torn off, or that Mother Nature can be a cruel bitch, or that some politicians are not trustworthy (oh, the disillusionment!)

    On a serious note - how is YouTube/Google supposed to deal with issues that are illegal in one place but not another, like, say...smoking pot?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This