You Tube: Google should not have to screen every video

Legal compliance 8 Comments

The conviction in Italy last week of three Google employees over a shocking video posted by a group of students on YouTube is extremely disappointing, and raises serious issues about how far providers of user-generated content platforms have to go in order to satisfy their legal obligations.

To be sure, Google does have a duty of care with regard to prompt removal of videos containing illegal or malicious content upon becoming aware of their existence. But the company cannot be held responsible every time someone chooses to upload these types of videos. Nor should they be expected to go to the extreme measure of pre-screening each and every video prior to them being made available for public viewing.

 
The Italian decision
The case in question revolves around a video which was posted by students at a school in Turin, Italy. The video in question showed them shamefully bullying an autistic schoolmate.

Although the video was posted in September 2006, Google staff were not made aware of its existence until two months later, when they received two requests to have it removed. Subsequently, the video was removed within hours, and the company assisted Italian police in identifying the individual responsible for its upload, who was later sentenced to ten months of community service (refer official company response).

But this did not satisfy the Italian courts, and a judge in Milan last Wednesday convicted three Google executives with violating Italian privacy laws in relation to the incident. Each was handed a six month suspended sentence.

 
Two troubling aspects
There are at least two troubling aspects of the decision:

1) that Google is being held responsible for content which it did not create and does not own; and
2) that the legal standard to which Google is being held does not accord with realistic commercial expectations.

Given that Google did not either own or create the video in question, neither the company nor individual members of its staff should be held responsible for its content. The same applies for all platforms of user-generated content (Blogger, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter etc). Users, not service providers, create and own the content. Therefore, it is individual users, rather than service providers (who merely provide a platform for individual users to share their creation), who should be responsibility for illegal or inappropriate material.

(Also troubling is the fact that the punishment applies not to the company itself but to individual Google employees. If Google committed any crime, surely the offense occurred at the corporate level and not at the level of any individual staff member. Any associated punishment should therefore apply to the company itself, not to individual employees)

 
Unrealistic expectations
More troubling still – questions the decision raises about the length to which Google and others have to go in order to satisfy legal requirements.

Given the extent of Google’s efforts in this case, it is hard to see what more the company could have done, and the fact that these efforts were not deemed to be sufficient raises some very troubling questions about the extent to which Google and others have to go in order to satisfy Italian law. Really, what else could they do? Pre-screen each and every video prior to upload? Pre-screen each and every blog post prior to publication on Blogger? How about Facebook – should they have to pre-screen each and every message or photograph?

No. Even if Google and others are deemed to have a duty of care regarding illegal or malicious content, such a duty should not extend beyond realistic commercial expectations.

 
Let’s hope the law adapts
Services like YouTube, Facebook and Blogger are subject to abuse by those intent on malicious or illegal activity.

But they also allow millions worldwide a platform by which they can create, share and connect with others.

Hopefully, over time, the law will adapt to the new media environment. But for now, decisions which impose unrealistic burden on providers of these services are very concerning for both the industry and the millions of users who enjoy the wonderful benefits which these types of services provide.

..

8 Responses to “You Tube: Google should not have to screen every video”

  1. Brad Shorr Says:
    March 4th, 2010 at 10:27 pm

    Hi Andrew, Your argument makes sense and I tend to agree with you. As a practical matter, I don’t understand how these media platforms can possibly conform to every country’s legal requirements/expectations. On the other hand, a hands off approach, where anything is permissible, doesn’t sit well with me, either. Content owners should be prosecuted to the full extent – but who determines what constitutes illegal content, and what governing body prosecutes? Tough questions!

  2. Andrew Heaton Says:
    March 6th, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Brad,

    These are tough questions as you say, and there are not necessarily any easy answers.

    The question of what actually constitutes illegal content could possibly be resolved according to traditional media rules – content which is legal on television should also be legal on YouTube. Vice-versa for content which would not be legal on television.

    But the situation is obviously more complex for companies who merely provide the platform as opposed to owning the content. This is new territory for which traditional media laws may be inadequate.

    In principle, overly prescriptive and inflexible rules and regulations are not appropriate, particularly given the need to allow the process of natural industry evolution. Instead, government, industry and consumer groups should work together to develop a big-picture framework which lays down a set of robust guiding principles. Specific laws, where required, could then be formed around such the basic framework.

    In the U.S, I would think it best if the rules were set at a federal level (I assume they are – do you know if this is correct?) – a singular set of rules should not be too much for firms to cope with in such a big country.

    In Europe, it would clearly be best for the rules to be set at the level of the EU. That’s one area of concern which I did not mention in the post – according to Google; their actions in this case (and others like it) were in line with EU guidelines. Part of the idea of the EU was so to act as one economic bloc, with (reasonably) consistent rules of doing business. The fact that Google staff were convicted in an EU member country for conduct which was within EU guidelines is very concerning for all firms with a significant presence in the continent.

    Unfortunately, however, across Asia, Latin America and the rest of the world, these issues will have to be decided on a country by country basis and social media platforms will have to adapt to individual company laws.

  3. Mark Says:
    March 9th, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    Andrew,
    As usual you have made excellent points and raised awareness of an issue that can affect us all. I agree this type of forced censorship is not good for any of us. We must allow the censor to be the viewer.

  4. Andrew Heaton Says:
    March 11th, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Thanks for your kind feedback – I’m glad to hear that you enjoy these discussions.

    I have no problem with some forms censorship (although I do certainly feel that video content should only be censored in extreme circumstances – those which show bomb making or live rape or child abuse, for instance could be censored), but I certainly feel that it is a bit rough to require those who merely provide a platform by which others are able to express themselves to pre-screen everything before it is uploaded.

    Even if some censorship is desirable, Google and others should not be expected to exercise absolute and complete oversight over every single piece of content which gets posted on their sites.

  5. Ana Says:
    March 17th, 2010 at 4:01 am

    I agree that it is unrealistic for Google to screen every video. I will say too that sometimes the airing of illegal videos, whether on YouTube or Google, leads to prosecutions, or at least identifications, of cruel acts that would have never come to light otherwise. In addition to the Italian bullies, I can think of an example of some kid in Wyoming whose brother filmed him throwing a kitten against a shower wall over and over again. Well, lots of people saw that video, somehow alerted the right authorities, the kid got into trouble and the kitten was rescued. But who would have known otherwise that this troubled young man was committing this violent act?

    (One other thought, why are people so stupid as to post illegal or violent videos with themselves clearly identified? Don’t they realize people WATCH these things? Idiots. They deserve to be caught and severely punished.)

  6. Andrew Heaton Says:
    March 21st, 2010 at 10:00 am

    Ana,

    Fair point – these kinds of public forums can help expose acts of cruelty which would otherwise have gone unpunished.

    That said, content sharing platforms may actually encourage these types of acts, since they give the bullies in question a medium by which to ‘show off’ to the world.

  7. Jeanne Dininni Says:
    May 6th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    Andrew,

    I’m late weighing in on this, but you’ve made some very good points here. While there are certainly limits to the kinds of content I would consider appropriate to post, blaming the company that owns the platform–and even worse, prosecuting individual employees of that company without evidence of actual wrongdoing–hardly seems fair.

    It’s unrealistic to expect that these employees could actually monitor every video posted to their site, and my thought is that their removal of the content within hours of learning of its existence demonstrates their good-faith effort to keep the site free of such content to the extent that it’s possible for them to do so. Holding the company responsible for the actions of its subscribers is questionable at best. Since the courts made the person who uploaded the video answer for his actions, why was it necessary to also prosecute the Google execs? Under the circumstances, this hardly seems a wise precedent.

  8. Ebonie Chiquito Says:
    July 10th, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    Well this kind of information is really worth searching for, good information for readers and a value for you as will definitely show the quality of the writer. It’s good to have these kinds of articles around to keep the information flow steady. Helping those who really can make things right in the future, good work!

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv Enabled
Icons by N.Design Studio. Designed By Ben Swift. Powered by WordPress and Free WordPress Themes
Entries RSS