What in the world is an Italian court doing suing former executives of a US company?
Isn't that sorta out of their jurisdiction??
Google execs convicted in YouTube Italy case
Summary
An Italian court handed out guilty verdicts on Wednesday for three of four Google executives charged a case concerning a YouTube video posted of a teenager with Down Syndrome.
Topics
In the second hit of a one-two punch in Europe, an Italian court handed out guilty verdicts on Wednesday for three of four Google executives charged a case concerning a YouTube video posted of a teenager with Down Syndrome.
The judge in the case, Oscar Magi, gave three current or former Google executives suspended six-month jail sentences, and a fourth was found not guilty, according to The Associated Press. The three sentences were for violation of privacy, but the judge found the three not guilty of defamation charges.
The findings come just one day after the European Union opened an antitrust investigation concerning Google search. There was a day when Google was an exciting newcomer to the technology landscape, but the company now is clearly a powerful force that has governments as well as competitors concerned.
In a Google blog post, the company criticized the decision and said it will appeal. "In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload," Google said. "It is outrageous that they have been subjected to a trial at all."
Found guilty of privacy invasion in the case are David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer; Peter Fleischer, Google's chief privacy counsel; and George Reyes, Google's former chief financial officer. A fourth Google employee, Arvind Desikan, was cleared of all charges, Google said.
For more on this story, read Google execs convicted in YouTube Italy case on CNET News.
Talkback Most Recent of 32 Talkback(s)
-
CobraA124th Feb 2010 -
Sovereign nations
If Google has operations in Italy and violate Italian laws, then they can be criminally and/or civilly liable.
Any international country must ensure they don't break local laws. If Italy decides that if you host (i.e. store) content, you are responsible for its legality. If Google feels it shouldn't censure uploads, then they may choose not to operate Youtube in Italy or similar jurisdictions.
Different sovereign nations have different ideas of what is legal and illegal. They may be contrary to what Americans may think.
N
Norm_z24th Feb 2010 -
As a company, yes, but as individuals?
As a company, yes, this might be the case, but maybe I'm reading this wrong, but they are being convicted as individuals?CobraA124th Feb 2010 -
Not all google executives live in the United States.
These were probably executives in the various Italian offices of google.
frgough24th Feb 2010 -
European privacy laws are very strict
Most European nation laws heavily protect the privacy rights of an individual, and they will prosecute high ranking individuals (eg CIO etc) if a company violates them.
iTeaBoy24th Feb 2010 -
Agree
I am not sure what the source of the confusion is here. You do business in a foreign country you are subject to that countries laws. Google can play by their rules or leave.
oncall24th Feb 2010 -
Typical
Google will gladly stake copyright on your uploads, put
advertisements on them and make money off them, but how
DARE you suggest they be held liable for the content they
allow.frgough24th Feb 2010 -
They shouldnt be...
Its ludicrous to think that they should be held criminally liable for content that is uploaded by an anonymous party.
You seriously cannot be for individuals in a company being charged with invasion of privacy because a video that was uploaded by somebody else.
But hey, maybe you want to live in a fascist state. Where the government can charge anybody with anything at anytime.
Stuka24th Feb 2010 -
Yes they should, if they alter it.
If they're willing to copyright it, add content
like advertisements, etc., they should certainly
have some responsibility for it, including legal
responsibility. If they weren't profiting from
it, then I'd agree with you.
clfitz24th Feb 2010 -
Shouldn't the entire Internet be censored, then?
I mean, there's always someone who can be said
to make money of a site.
1. Websites that allow and host comments are
often supported by ads.
Shouldn't all comments be pre-screened?
2. Web hosts are making money off websites that
may or may not include illegal material.
Shouldn't all changes made to a personal
website be pre-screened?
3. Search engines can be said to make money of
the sites that they track.
Shouldn't all webpages and websites in the
world be pre-screened?
4. The phone companies make money off prank
calls.
Shouldn't all phone conversations be monitored
and pre-approved by the government?
Theli24th Feb 2010 -
Get rid of annonymous posts.
Very few would post garbsge like this if their name was prominently displyed with it.
No_Ax_to_Grind24th Feb 2010 -
Content is your business, you make money out of it, you must screen it
CEO of ebay India was arrested because a college student tried to sell pornographic dvd. Also, there have been cases where user posted comments invited legal actions from public.
#1: If content is user generated and there is one single instance of report, you are supposed to bring the video down and screen it. This is not just a legal condition, it is also moral and ethical.
Frankly, there are times when you can stumble upon forced sex and child abuse on video sites and they still place advertisements beside such content - technically, a barter where they show you disturbing/defamatory/& abusive cotent for exchange of an advert. How is that not illegal?
If Google links to it, its legally okay. (But it is still unethical). It hosts such content on its server - then its completely illegal. More twist is added because they copied the video to servers across the continent! If I had to individually make copies of such videos I will be arrested, but when Google distributes it across their servers, exports it to different nations, no one utters a word - what a shame - we're allowing Google to hide behind technology and heavy usage - and essentially allowing Google to do what is illegal for 'rest of us'!
Now, considering all the facts, today it is impossible for Google to screen all content, but it is wrong to say that they have no moral responsibility. Moreover, it is wrong to not bring a video down that was reported as abusive in first instance and screen it manually.
This specific case involved a video that shot to 'most viewed' videos and it was a sick video. If they think they can code a video, host it on their cloud and then have to do nothing but watch those videos they completely wrong. They are doing a business and are supposed to keep a check on abusive usage. If a retailer wont allow child abuse in its premise, Google can't be allowed to distribute the video using its website. Don't be a devil, Google.
samunplugged25th Feb 2010 -
Google took two months to take down this garbage.
The compasny claims to have removed the video "as soon as they were notified"
However it seems evident that Google has dismissed or ignored several complaints in that period.
The prosecution had even put the slow responding to complaints in their case.
Possibly Google only accepts complaints trough some formal take down notice proces and ignored other complaints (which might have been a big mistake).
IE924th Feb 2010 -
If Google has to pre-screen content before allowing it
that would be the end of a free YouTube. It would cost a lot to do that.
However, that would prevent cases like this from showing up.
Just because a user uploads it, doesn't mean you should distribute it.
T1Oracle24th Feb 2010 -
ah....
it hasn't been free since Google took over....just look at all the ads on each youtube page
nothingness24th Feb 2010
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
