If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Italian court finds Google violated privacy. Xeni Jardin and 3 others liked this. View all 5 comments   (nytimes.com) divider line 137
    More: Dumbass, Xeni Jardin, guilty verdicts, suspended sentence, Italian, online videos, chilling effect, Milan, Google  
•       •       •

10565 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2010 at 8:06 AM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2010-02-24 08:09:08 AM  
Yeah, blame google, that's the ticket. Enjoy having no online video ever again, Italy
 
2010-02-24 08:09:32 AM  
Prosecutors charged that the videos violated Italian personal privacy protections, and said they were removed only after complaints from Vivi Down, an Italian organization representing people with Down syndrome, whose name was mentioned in the videos.

They only remove things as quickly as they're complained about? Those bastards! How dare they not know the name and condition of every living person shown in their videos!
 
2010-02-24 08:09:37 AM  
Stupid wops.
 
2010-02-24 08:09:56 AM  
Youtube has a "like" feature?
 
2010-02-24 08:11:42 AM  
/fifth.
 
2010-02-24 08:13:34 AM  
This is stupid, but this is kind of awesome:

Italian law holds corporate executives responsible for a company's actions, received six-month suspended sentences.
 
2010-02-24 08:15:06 AM  
Guido Thread?
 
2010-02-24 08:15:31 AM  
Asteroth: Stupid wops.

How can they be WOP's if they're still in Italy? Don't they technically have to be in America first?
 
2010-02-24 08:17:47 AM  
Trying to understand how the judges logically came up with their answer is making my head hurt.
 
2010-02-24 08:19:08 AM  
mantabulous: This is stupid, but this is kind of awesome:

Italian law holds corporate executives responsible for a company's actions, received six-month suspended sentences.


All depends on how they use it, and apparently they use it like some kind of autistic kid getting beaten up.

/On video, that is
 
2010-02-24 08:20:40 AM  
In other internet news - they mentioned 4Chan on Jeopardy last night.
 
2010-02-24 08:21:10 AM  
mantabulous: This is stupid, but this is kind of awesome:

Italian law holds corporate executives responsible for a company's actions, received six-month suspended sentences.


So how does one explain Berlusconi...

/Stupid country...
//Pull out, Google, pull out. Let's see them try to live without you!
 
2010-02-24 08:21:37 AM  
It's a Court in Italy. How they manage to get anything done with all those kangaroos jumping around is beyond me.
 
2010-02-24 08:23:29 AM  
So if I were to walk onto a Fiat car lot and show a photo of Silvio Berlusconi taking it up the butt, then Sergio Marchionne (Fiat CEO) would be held accountable?
 
2010-02-24 08:24:08 AM  
allthesametome: It's a Court in Italy. How they manage to get anything done with all those kangaroos jumping around is beyond me.

If there are kangaroos, it must be an Austrian court.
 
2010-02-24 08:24:24 AM  
Xenu?
 
2010-02-24 08:30:35 AM  
Xeni Jardin Oh so it has the crabs now too. That girl is so gross and lies about her CV more than anyone else on the net.
 
2010-02-24 08:30:54 AM  
mantabulous: This is stupid, but this is kind of awesome:

Italian law holds corporate executives responsible for a company's actions, received six-month suspended sentences.


It sounds like a good idea, but only in the hands of a judiciary not owned by anyone named Berlusconi.

In other news, nobody tell the Italians about tourretesguy.

/google it, I'll see you all in hell.
 
2010-02-24 08:31:29 AM  
Dunkel: In other internet news - they mentioned 4Chan on Jeopardy last night.

I saw that, I thought for sure the answer was "What is CP"
 
2010-02-24 08:35:53 AM  
DubyaHater: Asteroth: Stupid wops.

How can they be WOP's if they're still in Italy? Don't they technically have to be in America first?


Not that I was serious, but wop doesn't stand for without papers. It's taken from guappo, and it's a slur for all Italians, not Italian-Americans.
 
2010-02-24 08:40:36 AM  
Seth'n'Spectrum: In other news, nobody tell the Italians about tourretesguy.

/google it, I'll see you all in hell.


Yeah don't tell the folks at wikipedia about it either, they got so butthurt about it when people made an article for Danny that they removed the article, the second article, the discussion pages and the discussion pages' discussion pages.

Barakku: They only remove things as quickly as they're complained about? Those bastards! How dare they not know the name and condition of every living person shown in their videos!

This. How much more can google reasonably do in a situation like this (short of having mods for every single video that do in depth research into the background of each one)
 
2010-02-24 08:43:38 AM  
Asteroth: Stupid wops.

i185.photobucket.com
 
2010-02-24 08:44:03 AM  
For those unfamiliar, running a user generated website can be extremely irritating.

Current legal precedent suggests that while the site may not have the responsibility to moderate all content, they do if they have a system in place to moderate the content. Basically suggesting, if they do have a moderator screening all the content, they can be held liable. If they don't have a moderator, they can't/might not be held liable. In some cases, if it is outside your means to do so, it is actually better not to put a moderating system in place as that can open you to liability if it fails. This may seem like a tedious regulation, but for small independent webmasters can be a conundrum deliberating how to best provide moderation in compliance with the law, while not opening yourself to liability. Thus, alot of TOS have clauses like "we do not actively moderate based on the resources required to do so over the amount of content, all users must act in full compliance with the law" etc etc. Even though they do in fact have a moderation system in place, they're compelled to deny the existence of it.

It seems in this case, Google has followed most of the legal precedent in Europe and the US: pulling the content after receiving complaints. I'm not sure how much content is uploaded to Google per day, but I'm sure they have their shiat together and the amount of moderation required to do what the court is suggesting would be massive.

To do what the Italian Court is suggesting, all internet sites might be required to authorize every single piece of user generated content. This could massively hinder the development of the web, even sites like Fark where posters can comment without an immediate response of administrators.

On the other hand, Courts like this provide incentive for webmasters to geoblock entire countries if their legal system is not in compliance with customary international law. Which itself goes against the tenets of net neutrality.

It somewhat relates to the obscenity laws in the US, where it seems each state and locality can decide their own interpretations with what is seen on the internet.

The result is having to comply with the lowest common denominator, rather than the current legal precedent for what is customary.

I would disagree that holding corporate executives criminally liable is "awesome", that in fact is extremely chilling. As I doubt that there is any legal precedent in Italy suggesting that internet sites can be held liable in these situations.

The real issue seems to be a nationalistic attitude of foreign websites dominating their local companies on the internet. As they also suggested unfair practices in internet advertising. This ruling seems to be in line with a "go get em" logic.

All in all, it does not bode well for internet development and net neutrality. Even expecting to geo target different regulations to different countries with different laws is easily overcome. There is literally no way to expect an internet site to be in full compliance with the law without catering to the lowest common denominator.

Courts need to take the consequences of their decisions into consideration, but right now I see no way of forcing them to do that. Unless the most popular websites begin geoblocking entire IP ranges in response to more rulings.
 
2010-02-24 08:44:27 AM  
hipster_slayer: Xeni Jardin Oh so it has the crabs now too. That girl is so gross and lies about her CV more than anyone else on the net.

So she's not an intergalactic space princess?
 
2010-02-24 08:46:00 AM  
epoc_tnac: Yeah, blame google, that's the ticket. Enjoy having no online video ever again, Italy

This. After a ruling like that, there really is no alternative but to pull YouTube, Google Video, and every other related service out of Italy.
 
2010-02-24 08:46:09 AM  
I don't understand the headline or any of these comments.
 
2010-02-24 08:49:16 AM  
This is why we cannot have nice things.
 
2010-02-24 08:50:07 AM  
Google could cut off italy totally if they really wanted.

Out of Italy's ~59,000,000 citizens their broadband penetration is only 9,427,300.

World wide broadband subscribers? 305,000,000

They would only be cutting off access to 3% of total users. While I applaud google for backing their employee's it probably wouldn't hurt them much financially to stand their ground on this one if the media dictator of Italy doesn't realize that Google complied with their requests and helped out more than they were probably responsible to do.

Look at it this way: If the video had never been posted would there have been any outcry over the bastards that bullied the autistic kid? would anyone have even known? The video posting was probably key evidence in discovering the assholes in the first place.

Good on Google this round.
 
2010-02-24 08:50:40 AM  
rev. dave: This is why we cannot have nice things.

Zathrus can never have anything nice...
 
2010-02-24 08:52:14 AM  
i think i missed that video. anyone got a link?
 
2010-02-24 08:54:55 AM  
Shouldn't the people that posted this video be responsible and not the medium? If somebody stapled a picture of me picking my nose on a telephone pole, can I sue the telephone pole? Cause I gotta tell you. I've always wanted to sue a telephone pole.
 
2010-02-24 08:55:30 AM  
Voiceofreason01: Dunkel: In other internet news - they mentioned 4Chan on Jeopardy last night.

I saw that, I thought for sure the answer was "What is CP"


On topic because Italy copied pasta from China?
 
2010-02-24 08:56:31 AM  
Well, Italy can say goodbye to YouTube, Facebook, and any other user-uploadable services. That's really the only practical way Google can handle this.
 
2010-02-24 08:58:49 AM  
the italian lawyer's name is guido camera. really. guido.
 
2010-02-24 08:58:52 AM  
chu2dogg: For those unfamiliar, running a user generated website can be extremely irritating.

Current legal precedent ... blah blah blah ... self-important adjective-flecked windy bullshiat from a law-school dropout with too much time on his hands.


TL/DR

Don't make me edit you, son.
 
2010-02-24 09:00:13 AM  
Further proof the terrorists have won.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2010-02-24 09:00:42 AM  
A major purpose of the DMCA in America was to relieve web site operators of the burden of active moderation and permit them to respond to complaints instead. Those who like to call for repeal of DMCA may want to consider what the internet would be like without it. To get permission to post videos you would have to convince the web site operator that you would not get them in trouble by crossing the line between bad taste and criminal activity.

(The DMCA anti-circumvention provisions are annoying, but they are unrelated to the internet provisions and aren't in play here. Unless we start talking about selling EFF deCSS T-shirts over the internet.)
 
2010-02-24 09:00:55 AM  
I'm working on a Microsoft direct challenge to the Google empire called Milano, so I'm getting a kick out of your replies

We have always been at war with Google. Microsoft is our ally.
 
2010-02-24 09:03:15 AM  
Why would anyone want to torment a kid with autism anyway? He has his ups and downs like anyone else, but dang...

Voiceofreason01: Dunkel: In other internet news - they mentioned 4Chan on Jeopardy last night.

I saw that, I thought for sure the answer was "What is CP"


The answer is never about a christmas painting, moran
 
2010-02-24 09:03:49 AM  
theonlyjessica: the italian lawyer's name is guido camera. really. guido.

actually a very common italian name that didn't really make the jump across the ocean. my ex gf's grandfather was named guido concato. now that's name that belonged in the godafther
 
2010-02-24 09:04:34 AM  
ZAZ: ut they are unrelated to the internet provisions and aren't in play here.

No, but those are the provisions everyone wants to repeal.
 
2010-02-24 09:06:21 AM  
"We are definitely satisfied that someone has to take responsibility for this violation of privacy," said Guido Camera, a lawyer for Vivi Down.

How about the person who posted it?
Stupid grease balls.
 
2010-02-24 09:11:08 AM  
towatchoverme: chu2dogg: For those unfamiliar, running a user generated website can be extremely irritating.

Current legal precedent ... blah blah blah ... self-important adjective-flecked windy bullshiat from a law-school dropout with too much time on his hands.

TL/DR

Don't make me edit you, son.


The world revolve around you in your little head? Use the ignore button, pleeease?
 
2010-02-24 09:11:51 AM  
Voiceofreason01: Dunkel: In other internet news - they mentioned 4Chan on Jeopardy last night.

I saw that, I thought for sure the answer was "What is CP"


blog.enterpriseitplanet.com
 
2010-02-24 09:12:47 AM  
Italy is hopeless, it really is.

/Amazing that the same country that produces Berlusconi and 'tarded verdicts like this also produces Ferraris and Lamborghinis.
 
2010-02-24 09:13:13 AM  
Seth'n'Spectrum:
In other news, nobody tell the Italians about tourretesguy.

/google it, I'll see you all in hell.



BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAH
Chewbacca taking a shiat. BWAAAHAHAHAHA
Thanks man , that made my AM.
 
2010-02-24 09:16:59 AM  
Italy is just angry that Google is successful and Italy's economy is in the toilet and has been for decades. The same sort of behavior on display when Henry "Naked Mole Rat" Waxman exaggerates the problems involved in the Toyota recall in order to make the shiatty domestic automobile sector look better.
 
2010-02-24 09:21:32 AM  
theonlyjessica: the italian lawyer's name is guido camera. really. guido.

A guido camera is what you use to take pictures like this:

getoffourisland.com
 
2010-02-24 09:22:41 AM  
Recoil Therapy: Trying to understand how the judges logically came up with their answer is making my head hurt.

In the US, we have institutional inertia built into the courts. People who are lauded for their years of experience are determining the legality of technology that they have never seen or used before. Their experience means next to nothing. It's probably the same in Italy, as it is in the entire world.
 
2010-02-24 09:23:11 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Italy is just angry that Google is successful and Italy's economy is in the toilet and has been for decades. The same sort of behavior on display when Henry "Naked Mole Rat" Waxman exaggerates the problems involved in the Toyota recall in order to make the shiatty domestic automobile sector look better.

2.bp.blogspot.com


Toyota's still good to me Dammit!!!
 
2010-02-24 09:26:57 AM  
mantabulous: This is stupid, but this is kind of awesome:

Italian law holds corporate executives responsible for a company's actions, received six-month suspended sentences.


I don't think there's anything in American law that prevents that, but having a blanket law that requires it sounds dangerously stupid, case in point.
 
2010-02-24 09:27:02 AM  
What a Guido Camera might look like:

media.theknot.com
 
2010-02-24 09:27:35 AM  
spacechicken170am: Toyota's still good to me Dammit!!!

so what's the back-story on the "it's still real to me guy"?
 
2010-02-24 09:29:10 AM  
six-month suspended sentences

Suspended-a sentence! For justice, we must go to Don Corleone.

/I love America
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2010-02-24 09:29:44 AM  
t3knomanser

There's quite a bit of internet forum hate for DMCA takedown notices, in my experience more than for DMCA anti-circumvention rules. Repealing DMCA safe harbor leaves the people complaining about it worse off than they were before.
 
2010-02-24 09:31:35 AM  
netsharc
mantabulous:
This is stupid, but this is kind of awesome:
Italian law holds corporate executives responsible for a company's actions, received six-month suspended sentences.

So how does one explain Berlusconi...


Political immunity while in office, dragging out cases until getting back into office and then changing the relevant laws so that he couldn't be prosecuted anymore for breaking them in the past?
 
2010-02-24 09:33:31 AM  
Italian law is different than US law, what a surprising revelation.
 
2010-02-24 09:34:16 AM  
spacechicken170am: Toyota's still good to me Dammit!!!

No butthurt here about Toyota (I don't own one), but I find it disgraceful when politicians - particularly idiots like Waxman who don't know anything about subjects (baseball, steroids, consumer product safety standards, automobiles) they want to regulate - drive political witch hunts to raise their own national profile. This is exactly what is currently happening in Italy. After the laughable Nazi memorabilia suit against Yahoo was held unenforceable by US courts on first amendment grounds, all intelligent governments and prosecutors should have realized that domestic regulation of international web content is (a) foolish and impractiable and (b) incompatible with the very nature of the internet.
 
2010-02-24 09:34:19 AM  
farfigneugan: spacechicken170am: Toyota's still good to me Dammit!!!

so what's the back-story on the "it's still real to me guy"?


Get out the tissues...
 
2010-02-24 09:42:23 AM  
ZAZ:

I don't think it's necessarily anti-DMCA hate, but when anybody who claims to own anything claims a common law copyright and drafts up there own DMCA form and sends it from their hotmail account. Then they expect the shared host to comply with whatever legal interpretations they came up with as well.

The Face Of Oblivion:

What are you some kind of law school dropout?
 
2010-02-24 09:42:29 AM  
So hey, Italian courts, how's that CIA extradition going?
 
2010-02-24 09:43:01 AM  
This bears repeating...

rev. dave: This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2010-02-24 09:44:22 AM  
chu2dogg: What are you some kind of law school dropout?

Care to elaborate?
 
2010-02-24 09:45:03 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Care to elaborate?

It was a joke :) Cheers.
 
2010-02-24 09:46:12 AM  
Here's a summary of YouTube's business:

let's have a site where by far the most interesting and watched things will be pirated / copyright infringing videos from any and all sources imaginable. let's make money in that interval between when the video goes up to when it is taken down by our process which puts huge burden on the copyright holder to find and report violation goes through. once the copyright holder has jumped through the various hoops necessary to claim infringment, we will give the copyright holder the money that we have made through also showing ads. Ha ha, no, we'll keep it. Meanwhile, the next round of infringing videos have been uploaded already. Rinse, lather, repeat.

I dare you to find an infringing video that has "been removed due to violations of youtube's terms of service" that can't be found in another form on youtube anyway.

i have absolutely no problem with google/youtube getting f***** up the ass. free video for the rest of us or no, their business is one big theft ring.
 
2010-02-24 09:49:50 AM  
Google should play hardball and just block all of their services to Italy, and send a letter to Italy's legislature, executive and judiciary explaining exactly how stupid the ruling is, and replace the pages of any domains they own with said letter in italy.

If Italian Internet users are anything like US Internet users, the outrage will be deafening.
 
2010-02-24 09:50:49 AM  
Dunkel: In other internet news - they mentioned 4Chan on Jeopardy last night.

JEA/B/ARDY!

hipster_slayer: Xeni Jardin Oh so it has the crabs now too. That girl is so gross and lies about her CV more than anyone else on the net.

She sounds like she eats two packs of smokes a day, but i still love boingboing.
/doesnt get all the Xeni hate
 
2010-02-24 09:51:45 AM  
upright_apes_r_us: Italian law is different than US law, what a surprising revelation.

The internet is global, what an important caveat.
 
2010-02-24 09:56:31 AM  
Bomb Head Mohammed: i have absolutely no problem with google/youtube getting f***** up the ass. free video for the rest of us or no, their business is one big theft ring.

Copyright infringement isn't theft.
 
2010-02-24 09:58:24 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: spacechicken170am: Toyota's still good to me Dammit!!!

No butthurt here about Toyota (I don't own one), but I find it disgraceful when politicians - particularly idiots like Waxman who don't know anything about subjects (baseball, steroids, consumer product safety standards, automobiles) they want to regulate - drive political witch hunts to raise their own national profile. This is exactly what is currently happening in Italy. After the laughable Nazi memorabilia suit against Yahoo was held unenforceable by US courts on first amendment grounds, all intelligent governments and prosecutors should have realized that domestic regulation of international web content is (a) foolish and impractiable and (b) incompatible with the very nature of the internet.


No, you indicated that his purpose was to make the domestics look better and you referred to the domestics as shiatty. That implies that you have a significant amount of butthurt.
 
2010-02-24 10:00:19 AM  
"Copyright infringement isn't theft."

and playing the slashdot games involving technically terminology and doing any other handwavy-type things (uh uh but i get my linux isos via torrents!) possible isn't a substitute for a mature and honest discussion of the heart of the issue.
 
2010-02-24 10:00:42 AM  
Bomb Head Mohammed: Here's a summary of YouTube's business:

let's have a site where by far the most interesting and watched things will be pirated / copyright infringing videos from any and all sources imaginable. let's make money in that interval between when the video goes up to when it is taken down by our process which puts huge burden on the copyright holder to find and report violation goes through. once the copyright holder has jumped through the various hoops necessary to claim infringment, we will give the copyright holder the money that we have made through also showing ads. Ha ha, no, we'll keep it. Meanwhile, the next round of infringing videos have been uploaded already. Rinse, lather, repeat.

I dare you to find an infringing video that has "been removed due to violations of youtube's terms of service" that can't be found in another form on youtube anyway.

i have absolutely no problem with google/youtube getting f***** up the ass. free video for the rest of us or no, their business is one big theft ring.


Obvious troll is obvious
3/10 -outrage was good and your oversimplification of the argument was good, the profanity at the end was particularly effective, but I just didn't believe the crazy, you've got to really sell it.
 
2010-02-24 10:01:48 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Bomb Head Mohammed: i have absolutely no problem with google/youtube getting f***** up the ass. free video for the rest of us or no, their business is one big theft ring.

Copyright infringement isn't theft.


Not to mention they remove infringing material when a DMCA take-down is received.
 
2010-02-24 10:02:27 AM  
Googles response: Hah hah, no more internets for Italy.
 
2010-02-24 10:04:54 AM  
Bomb Head Mohammed: and playing the slashdot games involving technically terminology and doing any other handwavy-type things (uh uh but i get my linux isos via torrents!) possible isn't a substitute for a mature and honest discussion of the heart of the issue.

An honest and mature discussion starts with the distinction between theft and copyright infringement.
 
2010-02-24 10:05:03 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Bomb Head Mohammed: i have absolutely no problem with google/youtube getting f***** up the ass. free video for the rest of us or no, their business is one big theft ring.

Copyright infringement isn't theft.


Yes it is, IP theft.
 
2010-02-24 10:05:21 AM  
Ciao
 
2010-02-24 10:10:38 AM  
spacechicken170am: No, you indicated that his purpose was to make the domestics look better and you referred to the domestics as shiatty. That implies that you have a significant amount of butthurt.

Domestic cars are shiatty, with the arguable exception of GMC trucks and large SUVs. You don't have to love Toyota to see that. Toyota could make nothing but Pintos and domestic cars would still suck. Waxman and his ilk miscalculate the effect of over-criticizing foreign manufacturers (and not just in the automobile market) because they don't stop to think about where their traditional unionized labor backers are going to be working in a decade.

Smarshmallow: Yes it is, IP theft.

I don't think you understand the law.
 
2010-02-24 10:14:22 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: spacechicken170am: No, you indicated that his purpose was to make the domestics look better and you referred to the domestics as shiatty. That implies that you have a significant amount of butthurt.

Domestic cars are shiatty, with the arguable exception of GMC trucks and large SUVs. You don't have to love Toyota to see that. Toyota could make nothing but Pintos and domestic cars would still suck. Waxman and his ilk miscalculate the effect of over-criticizing foreign manufacturers (and not just in the automobile market) because they don't stop to think about where their traditional unionized labor backers are going to be working in a decade.

Smarshmallow: Yes it is, IP theft.

I don't think you understand the law.


So despite the fact that Ford has been building quality cars and has been on par with Honda and Toyota for almost half a decade now you still call domstics shiatty. This is a bad case butthurt. You may require a butthurtectomy.
 
2010-02-24 10:14:46 AM  
<b><a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5053010&IDComment=58440460#c584 40460">Bad_Seed</a>:</b> <i>An honest and mature discussion starts with the distinction between theft and copyright infringement.</i>

and the fact that you people continue to harp on this because i used the term 'theft' in a throwaway line at the end of the post despite clearly using 'infringing' correctly elsewhere in my post doesn't at all suggest that you are trying to steer the discussion anywhere but towards the hard realities.

people - look - i like watching youtube videos - infringing ones even - as much as the next guy. but i'm not so dishonest as to see that it's a fundamentally unfair system to copyright holders.

i mean, do you see what you need to do to report an infringing video on youtube? for the life of me i can't find it on the new "more ads to click on" youtube interface, but it used to be when you clicked on whatever you needed to to report an infringing video, youtube's message basically threatened you with legal action if you were reporting something that you didn't have standing to report (not that you were wrong, but that you didn't have standing). it doesn't take a genius (which means that even i can see) that this was clearly youtube trying to stretch out that interval between 'post' and 'takedown' a bit longer.

steal a dvd from a store, go to jail. infringe 100 million 'clips' become a billionaire, i guess.
 
2010-02-24 10:15:15 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: I don't think you understand the law.

I don't think that you understand the law. There, now we're even.
 
2010-02-24 10:16:14 AM  
Google is currently fighting a copyright lawsuit brought by Mediaset, the Italian broadcaster controlled by the Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Every sentence in that article was irrelevant except for this one.

Berlusconi is everything us libruls always suspected about Dubya, except (a) smart, (b) drinks openly, and (c) is actually working for himself, rather than for the abstract principle that people on yachts should be able to bugger the servants without too much fuss.

I'd make some joke about how Berlusconi is the kind of guy who'd rape your mother on live TV but make you admire what a magnificent bastard he is while he did it... but then all you Farkers have mothers, and some of them will travel to Italy in the next few years, and there's a pretty good chance he's going to rape them live on one of the TV stations he owns.
 
2010-02-24 10:17:40 AM  
spacechicken170am: So despite the fact that Ford has been building quality cars and has been on par with Honda and Toyota for almost half a decade now you still call domstics shiatty.

And you think I'm the butthurt one, when my opinion lines up with those of US consumers (demonstrated by their buying habits) more generally? Is Ford paying your pension? Domestic automobiles are poorly designed and are not priced competitively.
 
mhd
2010-02-24 10:19:26 AM  
Ah, an Italian court. What better place to court Italians?

/Get it?
 
2010-02-24 10:21:17 AM  
That ruling is retarded.
 
2010-02-24 10:21:29 AM  
Smarshmallow: The Face Of Oblivion: I don't think you understand the law.

I don't think that you understand the law. There, now we're even.


I'll bite. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol=207
 
2010-02-24 10:24:30 AM  
mortimer_ford: Shouldn't the people that posted this video be responsible and not the medium?

According to Google, the young woman responsible was "sentenced to 10 months community service by a court in Turin, as were several other classmates who were also involved."
 
2010-02-24 10:25:42 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: I'll bite. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol=207

That appears to be an American case.
 
2010-02-24 10:27:47 AM  
Yes. I assume you were talking about American law. Bomb Head Mohammed is an American living abroad, and would therefore be familiar with the American copyright system.
 
2010-02-24 10:28:18 AM  
If I post an inflammatory photograph of somebody on a grocery store's bulletin board, the manager of the store should be charged with a crime, too.
 
2010-02-24 10:29:44 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: spacechicken170am: So despite the fact that Ford has been building quality cars and has been on par with Honda and Toyota for almost half a decade now you still call domstics shiatty.

And you think I'm the butthurt one, when my opinion lines up with those of US consumers (demonstrated by their buying habits) more generally? Is Ford paying your pension? Domestic automobiles are poorly designed and are not priced competitively.


You're absolutely right, because Ford did terribly this year and didn't win any awards for quality from presigious institutions such as JDPower.

/butthurt
 
2010-02-24 10:30:03 AM  
Moreover, the idea contained therein is universal. "Theft" requires deprivation of an owner of possession over an object, which of course does not occur when a copy is made of it.
 
2010-02-24 10:30:11 AM  
chu2dogg: I would disagree that holding corporate executives criminally liable is "awesome", that in fact is extremely chilling.

I think it's appropriate, but only for actual criminal offenses. This, at best, would be a civil complaint in the US.

Holding Sony BMG executives responsible for knowingly and intentionally putting malicious computer code in their products, for example, would be appropriate.
 
2010-02-24 10:31:06 AM  
spacechicken170am: almost half a decade now

WOW! That's almost five years! Surely, a mediocre-to-average five years should eradicate the public perception created by decades of shiattiness! I mean that's ALMOST HALF A DECADE! That's like, forever.
 
2010-02-24 10:31:23 AM  
Voiceofreason01: You're absolutely right, because Ford did terribly this year and didn't win any awards for quality from presigious institutions such as JDPower.

I trust the market as a whole more than I trust a marketing firm's sampling.
 
2010-02-24 10:33:52 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Moreover, the idea contained therein is universal. "Theft" requires deprivation of an owner of possession over an object, which of course does not occur when a copy is made of it.

No, it's not universal, that's just the justification in the case that you found on wikipedia. If you look at the wikipedia article that you ripped your source from, you'll see that in Britain, it is viewed as theft.
 
2010-02-24 10:35:36 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Yes. I assume you were talking about American law. Bomb Head Mohammed is an American living abroad, and would therefore be familiar with the American copyright system.

The article and the headline are about Italian law.
 
2010-02-24 10:37:42 AM  
Smarshmallow: No, it's not universal, that's just the justification in the case that you found on wikipedia.

Actually, I didn't consult Wikipedia. I work on some IP legal advocacy issues in the US, and will continue to do so after my admission to the NY and DC bars. Moreover, the Wikipedia article that you ripped from quotes a UK report as calling infringement "effectively a civil form of theft", which is not the same thing as calling it actually theft. It's akin to calling a snake "effectively a terrestrial form of eel".
 
2010-02-24 10:38:59 AM  
Smarshmallow: The article and the headline are about Italian law.

But not about Italian copyright law. BHM, who I responded to, attacked Youtube on copyright, not privacy grounds, and made a claim that doesn't square with the US copyright law with which he would be familiar.
 
2010-02-24 10:39:27 AM  
Smarshmallow: you'll see that in Britain, it is viewed as theft.

A government report, that is not in any way to be considered a statement of law or precedent for jurisprudence, said it was "effectively" a form of civil theft. It is not, in a legal sense, theft. Not even in England.
 
2010-02-24 10:39:43 AM  
Bomb Head Mohammed: and the fact that you people continue to harp on this because i used the term 'theft' in a throwaway line at the end of the post despite clearly using 'infringing' correctly elsewhere in my post doesn't at all suggest that you are trying to steer the discussion anywhere but towards the hard realities.

Fair enough, but it is a fundamental distinction which is deliberately blurred by some people in order to scare or guilt people into complying.

people - look - i like watching youtube videos - infringing ones even - as much as the next guy. but i'm not so dishonest as to see that it's a fundamentally unfair system to copyright holders.

Technology is a fundamentally unfair system to copyright holders. The minute I can duplicate and distribute information at minimal cost some copyright holder will feel that they are losing out - whether they actually are and to what extent is a different question.

i mean, do you see what you need to do to report an infringing video on youtube? for the life of me i can't find it on the new "more ads to click on" youtube interface, but it used to be when you clicked on whatever you needed to to report an infringing video, youtube's message basically threatened you with legal action if you were reporting something that you didn't have standing to report (not that you were wrong, but that you didn't have standing). it doesn't take a genius (which means that even i can see) that this was clearly youtube trying to stretch out that interval between 'post' and 'takedown' a bit longer.

If you look at YouTube's most popular videos, they are mostly of idiots ranting about something or doing something stupid. Sad as it may be, that's where YouTube makes its money, not by hosting full length, copyrighted TV shows or movies. Given the size of YouTube and the volume of videos uploaded, it is natural that they will want to give themselves breathing room in between getting a takedown notice and having the video removed.

steal a dvd from a store, go to jail. infringe 100 million 'clips' become a billionaire, i guess.

Don't forget the 3rd option - download an album of music, get fined $1,000,000. The little guy always gets screwed.

I agree with you that YouTube are deliberately operating with ambiguity in how much they want to enforce others' copyright, but that's more of a function of the technology - there's only so much you can do to control your users before the site become unmanageable.

On the other hand, I doubt copyright holders lose much actual income over this. If you insist on watching a movie in horribly compressed low res, in ten minutes segments, you weren't going to be paying money for it in the first place.
 
2010-02-24 10:39:59 AM  
When did Google buy Facebook?
 
2010-02-24 10:42:07 AM  
Well, to be honest, the italia court system is farked up. I'm never surprised to hear about asinine rulings such as this one coming out of Italy.

/read Monster in Florence or about Amanda Knox.
 
2010-02-24 10:46:28 AM  
what I got out of this story:
note to self.. Italy likes to make fun of autistic children and brag about it online
good job everyone
 
2010-02-24 10:48:16 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: But not about Italian copyright law. BHM, who I responded to, attacked Youtube on copyright, not privacy grounds, and made a claim that doesn't square with the US copyright law with which he would be familiar.

He focused on US laws well after the fact. At the point that I entered the discussion, that wasn't the case.
 
2010-02-24 10:50:30 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Smarshmallow: No, it's not universal, that's just the justification in the case that you found on wikipedia.

Actually, I didn't consult Wikipedia. I work on some IP legal advocacy issues in the US, and will continue to do so after my admission to the NY and DC bars. Moreover, the Wikipedia article that you ripped from quotes a UK report as calling infringement "effectively a civil form of theft", which is not the same thing as calling it actually theft. It's akin to calling a snake "effectively a terrestrial form of eel".


Damnit. Ok, I take back my original statement.
 
2010-02-24 10:52:07 AM  
Smarshmallow:

Actually, he was posting about US DMCA takedown notices before you posted. You're demonstrably wrong about both US and UK law, and now you're just making things up to look less silly.
 
2010-02-24 11:00:05 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Smarshmallow:

Actually, he was posting about US DMCA takedown notices before you posted. You're demonstrably wrong about both US and UK law, and now you're just making things up to look less silly.


Where? You responded to this post.. This was BHM's first and only post at the time that you responded. It doesn't mention US law or refer to a post about US law. When I posted, he had posted once more, but still hadn't posted about US law.

Now, I've conceded to your expertise in law, but don't make shiat up.
 
2010-02-24 11:02:56 AM  
Smarshmallow: Now, I've conceded to your expertise in law, but don't make shiat up.

I did indeed quote that post, which says:

"when the video goes up to when it is taken down by our process which puts huge burden on the copyright holder to find and report violation goes through."

The "process" he refers to is DMCA notification. When you go you Youtube and visit their copyright complaint page (new window), you see

"To file a copyright infringement notification with us, you will need to send a written communication that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see Section 512(c)(3) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to confirm these requirements):".
 
2010-02-24 11:08:28 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: did indeed quote that post, which says:

"when the video goes up to when it is taken down by our process which puts huge burden on the copyright holder to find and report violation goes through."

The "process" he refers to is DMCA notification. When you go you Youtube and visit their copyright complaint page (new window), you see

"To file a copyright infringement notification with us, you will need to send a written communication that includes substantially the following (please consult your legal counsel or see Section 512(c)(3) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to confirm these requirements):".


You're getting all of that from "our process?" Alright.
 
2010-02-24 11:22:22 AM  
old_toole: Seth'n'Spectrum:
In other news, nobody tell the Italians about tourretesguy.

/google it, I'll see you all in hell.


BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAH
Chewbacca taking a shiat. BWAAAHAHAHAHA
Thanks man , that made my AM.


BOB SAGET!
 
2010-02-24 11:22:35 AM  
Smarshmallow: The Face Of Oblivion: Smarshmallow: No, it's not universal, that's just the justification in the case that you found on wikipedia.

Actually, I didn't consult Wikipedia. I work on some IP legal advocacy issues in the US, and will continue to do so after my admission to the NY and DC bars. Moreover, the Wikipedia article that you ripped from quotes a UK report as calling infringement "effectively a civil form of theft", which is not the same thing as calling it actually theft. It's akin to calling a snake "effectively a terrestrial form of eel".

Damnit. Ok, I take back my original statement.


There are no retractions on Fark for insignificant details like accuracy. Try insulting his parents, instead.
 
2010-02-24 11:29:35 AM  
chu2dogg: towatchoverme: chu2dogg: For those unfamiliar, running a user generated website can be extremely irritating.

Current legal precedent ... blah blah blah ... self-important adjective-flecked windy bullshiat from a law-school dropout with too much time on his hands.

TL/DR

Don't make me edit you, son.

The world revolve around you in your little head? Use the ignore button, pleeease?


Ignore is for trolls and idiots. You probably have a point to make, but your writing is atrocious. And if you're gonna be a whiny biatch when someone points it out ... well ... Welcome to Fark, counselor.
 
2010-02-24 11:33:00 AM  
Recoil Therapy: Trying to understand how the judges logically came up with their answer is making my head hurt.


The Italian legal system is, well, traditional would be the polite term. In the sense of trying to find if the defendant 'weighs the same as a duck' kind of traditional.
 
2010-02-24 11:37:05 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Voiceofreason01: You're absolutely right, because Ford did terribly this year and didn't win any awards for quality from presigious institutions such as JDPower.

I trust the market as a whole more than I trust a marketing firm's sampling.

According to Ford, consumer response to the 2006 Fusion had exceeded their expectations,[44] with 30,000 sold during the first quarter of 2006. By October 2009, the Fusion became one of the the top ten best-selling cars in the U.S. for the first time, as well as the best-selling car by a domestic automaker.[45]


I don't care who you are, the Fusion is farking sweet. Gets decent mileage, looks good, and is made by a domestic auto company. I'd buy one in a heartbeat if a) I weren't moving to a town with decent mass transit b) my buddy hadn't already bought one last year. The hybrid even gets 41 mpg in the city. The only way Ford could get better is if they were allowed to start importing their Euro diesels here in the States.
 
2010-02-24 11:38:05 AM  
Smarshmallow: You're getting all of that from "our process?" Alright.

That is the Youtube takedown process. They've elected to do it by form, presumably to save Google's lawyers time and avoid duplicate efforts.
 
2010-02-24 11:41:55 AM  
So I took my ex out on a date once to Olive Garden one time becuase she loves the bread sticks (don't all chicks seem to dig the 'bread sticks'). She ordered the never ending soup and salad and pasta thing (she's a tank at 250 lbs, 5'11" but she farks like a champ AND swallows) and I ordered some carbonara pasta dish because lets face it, I like bacon. Three hours later we're in the car on the way back home (yeah, I told you she's a tank and got the never ending stuff) and she's giving me road head. Right when I'm about to cum I get all queasy and throw up in her hair while we're goin' 75mph down the interstate. I kept feeling sick so we went to the ER and they said I had food poisoning. I talked to Olive Garden about it to see if they would at least cover the cost of getting the interior of my car detailed but they said "Our chef's are trained by Italian trained chefs, they never make mistakes. If you have any problems you gotta talk to the Italian government." So I had my lawyer send the Greaser government a letter and some shiat and then they invited me to Italy to talk about it. I stepped off the plane and next thing I know, there's like 18 greasers in suits kicking me down and stomping on my balls. Now I love Olive Garden and all Italians because that's what they taught me while they pulled my fingernails out with some vice grips and a blow torch.
 
2010-02-24 11:48:40 AM  
www.jpbrown.co.uk

TANK!
 
2010-02-24 11:50:15 AM  
t3knomanser: spacechicken170am: almost half a decade now

WOW! That's almost five years! Surely, a mediocre-to-average five years should eradicate the public perception created by decades of shiattiness! I mean that's ALMOST HALF A DECADE! That's like, forever.


Wow, it also just so happens to be the same period of time that Toyota has been building shiatty cars!!! I'm sure that will have no effect at all on only 2 decades of bulding a good reputation. O wait Toyota sales are going down like a pregnent girl on prom night.
 
2010-02-24 11:52:14 AM  
chu2dogg

Here's what you said, without the filler:

According to international law, the site may not have to moderate all content, unless they have a system in place to moderate it. If they do have a moderator, they may be held liable. So, it may be better not to put a moderating system in place.

For small independent webmasters is a conundrum. That's why a lot of Terms of Service have clauses like "we do not actively moderate based on the resources required to do so over the amount of content" etc. Even if they have a moderation system in place, they have to deny it.

Google seems to have followed most of the legal precedent in Europe and the US: pulling the content after receiving complaints -- probably because the amount of moderation required to do what the court is suggesting would be massive.

To do what the Italian Court is suggesting, all internet sites would need to authorize every single piece of user-generated content. Even sites like Fark where posters can comment without freely. Obviously, that would cripple the Web.

On the other hand, this could encourage webmasters to geoblock entire countries if their legal system doesn't comply with international law, which goes against the tenets of net neutrality.

Holding corporate executives criminally liable isn't "awesome", it's chilling. I doubt there is any legal precedent in Italy making internet sites liable.

The issue seems to be countries that don't want foreign websites dominating their local companies. They also suggested unfair practices in internet advertising. So this ruling seems in line with a "go get 'em" logic.

This bodes poorly for internet development and net neutrality. There is no way to expect an internet site to be in full compliance with the law without catering to the lowest common denominator.

* Saved you +200 words with about 2 mins of work.
 
2010-02-24 11:56:45 AM  
Man, the mafia sure does love those retards.
 
2010-02-24 11:58:05 AM  
The Face Of Oblivion: spacechicken170am: So despite the fact that Ford has been building quality cars and has been on par with Honda and Toyota for almost half a decade now you still call domstics shiatty.

And you think I'm the butthurt one, when my opinion lines up with those of US consumers (demonstrated by their buying habits) more generally? Is Ford paying your pension? Domestic automobiles are poorly designed and are not priced competitively.


O wow another opinion that hasn't been updated since 2004. In case you haven't noticed there skippy Ford has been increasing market share, improving reliability, winning style and quality awards, and building good cars for a while now. How are things back there in 2004? Psst, you might want to bet on the Patriots in the super bowl.
 
2010-02-24 11:59:21 AM  
So why hasn't she commented considering the kind of child being picked on in the video?
pamelavillars.files.wordpress.com
 
2010-02-24 12:03:07 PM  
spacechicken170am: In case you haven't noticed there skippy Ford has been increasing market share, improving reliability, winning style and quality awards, and building good cars for a while now.

Your stock portfolio must be hurting pretty bad for you to put this much effort into shilling. Why don't you just send me a copy of the marketing document you're paraphrasing?
 
2010-02-24 12:06:53 PM  
towatchoverme:

I'm not sure you have the necessary background to hold your own in this conversation. Trying taking a class an Internet Law.

* Saved you +200 words with about 2 mins of work.

Amazing, and you thought I had too much time on my hands.
 
2010-02-24 12:09:24 PM  
chu2dogg: Amazing, and you thought I had too much time on my hands.

Maybe two minutes is a lot of time to your girlfriend, but not to me.
 
2010-02-24 01:30:31 PM  
The Face Of Oblivion: Bomb Head Mohammed: i have absolutely no problem with google/youtube getting f***** up the ass. free video for the rest of us or no, their business is one big theft ring.

Copyright infringement isn't theft.


I have you favorited and have for a while. I hear that line all the time and I think it is a cop out. When one infringes on copyright they are depriving the owner. They are taking away their ability to control their property - intellectual in this case. They are taking a measure of enjoyment (perhaps) without the right to do so. Is it theft in the legal definition? Nope. However the definitions of "steal" will (see m-w.com) fit in a few areas.

That being said... I steal movies and music all the time. I could pay for them and probably should but I don't. It is mostly laziness and ease that drive my piracy though I don't try to sugarcoat it nor do I attempt mental gymnastics to justify it. I just accept it and I guess I'm not ethical enough to be bothered by it.
 
2010-02-24 01:33:14 PM  
If FARK is seen in Italy we are all screwd.
 
2010-02-24 01:38:10 PM  
stuffy: If FARK is seen in Italy we are all screwd.

I have linked this site to a few friends I have over ther ;)
 
2010-02-24 01:38:48 PM  
*there*
 
2010-02-24 01:53:07 PM  
UnspokenVoice: They are taking away their ability to control their property - intellectual in this case.

Making a copy doesn't deprive the owner of the ability to control anything already under their control. There's a sort of nebulous argument that you take away their ability to control that one additional copy, but that's the essence of the tort of copyright infringement: literally, that you've created a copy that you weren't authorized by some statutory or contractual privilege to make. You can't be a thief by creating something; it just doesn't fit in concept of stealing that exists in the English language and common law.

I could pay for them and probably should but I don't.

You're stuck in the deadweight loss area: you're the consumer unwilling to pay the artifically set price for a good, but one who would presumably pay a lower price to acknowledge the convenience of getting that content directly rather than waiting for bittorrent (and maybe to support the author). Intellectual property is and always has been based on artificial scarcity, which doesn't occur with respect to ideas in the way it occurs with respect to, say, microwave ovens. An intelligent copyright holder would have figured out a way to engage in price discrimination to charge you less for that copy but still earn a profit, while charging the less savvy or more instant gratification-focused person down the street a higher price. None of this is to say that copying is morally permissible in all situations, just to point out that the onus is not totally on users of content to fix the market. Copyright is a government-afforded limited monopoly traded for public benefit, as the constitution says; copyright owners have an implicit obligation to use it effectively. Not surprisingly, distribution paths that users desire are also generally the most profitable for the copyright holder.
 
2010-02-24 02:21:15 PM  
towatchoverme: Maybe two minutes is a lot of time to your girlfriend, but not to me.

leave your sister out of this will ya?
 
2010-02-24 03:01:57 PM  
chu2dogg: leave your sister out of this will ya?

"I waited all day for that?"

"What are 'phrases Farkers and my girlfriend might say,' Alex."

/Cheers, counselor
 
2010-02-24 04:34:35 PM  
The Face Of Oblivion: You can't be a thief by creating something; it just doesn't fit in concept of stealing that exists in the English language and common law.

The definition can fit for "steal." It is rather loose but I don't sugarcoat it. I *do* pay for Netflix so there is that, meaning yeah - if it is easy enough (I live in the sticks as well, that's not justification that's just elaborating) I'd pay. I'm often paying for stuff online.

Intellectual property is a rather tricky subject. I've thought long and hard about it over the years and even had some patents that I sold when I sold my business. I can see where it has some merit and I can see where people argue on the side of "freedom." I sort of subscribe to the idea that your freedoms end at the end of your nose and mine don't begin until my nose starts. That being said, we don't have a right to the work of other people.

There is deprivation of IP perhaps, control perhaps, etc... I'm not bothered by it enough to lose any sleep. A copy was taken, made as you seemed to call it, without permission. Was there any physical property lost? Absolutely not. I believe that when I looked earlier the dictionary used the example of "stolen liberty." There's no property lost in that when you have a liberty lost. It is not theft in any court of law that I can think of but I don't attempt to maintain any sort of belief that what I (and others) are doing is morally acceptable, ethical, legal, justified, or even ever going to become an accepted societal norm.

Either way, your response was (as always) interesting and I'll ponder more. There are still a lot of things that I don't really have a solid opinion on even at my age. In this case I think the laws NEED to be adjusted, copyright is way too long. For that matter I also don't think that we should have to fight so hard to maintain a trademark but that's a topic for another day though it is slightly related.
 
2010-02-24 10:36:02 PM  
Jenny Jordan is a no-talent attention whore.

/Just sayin
 
2010-02-25 12:34:01 AM  
The real story here is that there are at least 2 farkers in this thread that actually watch Jeopardy.
 
2010-02-25 03:08:58 AM  
Color me in Google's corner for this one. The ruling is ridiculous.

They won't pull services, though. Too many scrumptious advertiser dollars would be lost.
 
Displayed 137 of 137 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report