Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

YouTube Legally Considered a TV Station In Italy

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the legislation-to-facilitate-prosecution dept.

Google 254

orzetto writes "Italian newspaper La Repubblica reports that YouTube and similar websites based on user-generated content will be considered TV stations (Google translation of Italian original) in Italian law, and will be subject to the same obligations. Among these, a small tax (500 €), the obligation to publish corrections within 48 hours upon request of people who consider themselves slandered by published content, and the obligation not to broadcast content inappropriate for children in certain time slots. The main change, though, is that YouTube and similar sites will be legally responsible for all published content as long as they have any form (even if automated) of editorial control. The main reason for this is probably that it will force YouTube to assume editorial responsibility for all published content, which facilitates the ongoing € 500M lawsuit of Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi against YouTube because of content copyrighted by Berlusconi's TV networks that some users uploaded on YouTube. Berlusconi's Spanish TV station, TeleCinco, was previously defeated in court on the grounds that YouTube is not a content provider."

cancel ×

254 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pretty much completely infeasible. (5, Insightful)

nonzzero (1946796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724912)

The best response to this would be "No more YouTube for Italy!"

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34724954)

Do you really think this isn't the intended result of this law? Silvio "Mr. Corruption" Berlusconi owns most major TV stations in Italy. He's in the perfect position to get rid of competition.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34724970)

For that to work, TV stations must in fact be competitive with YouTube. The fact that YouTube is considered a problem indicates that they're not, and nobody is going to switch back. This is a pissing contest, and Italy/Berlusconi will lose.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725018)

What is Italy going to do? Block foreign YouTube servers from Italy? I'm sure the general public is going to be really impressed by that.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (3, Insightful)

by (1706743) (1706744) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725134)

I could imagine YouTube voluntarily blocking Italian IPs (or Italy blocking YouTube), and a YouTube-via-proxy How-To being published in Italian (imagine that!). The result could be that YouTube "complies" with Italian law, Italians retain access to YouTube, and Berlusconi looks like an idiot.

Here's to hoping!

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Peach Rings (1782482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725384)

Why would Youtube block Italy? They probably have very little interest in complying with Italian law.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725454)

Well, there's google.it [google.it] , for starters. Not sure if any EU laws/regulations would come into play, but if they do it's a sure bet that Google isn't interested in writing off Europe.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725028)

Direct Italian Youtube visitors to a page explaining why Youtube is no longer available in Italy. I suspect that Berlusconi will regret doing this.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725132)

And to help everyone in Italy, Google needs to have the proper address, phone, fax and email information for Berlusconi displayed on the same explanation page. He works in politics, those informations are not private, quite the contrary.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (3, Insightful)

statusbar (314703) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725390)

And any italian citizen sending a message to Berlusconi will get a "visit in the night" just like any other Berlusconi opposers receive.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725742)

You can't be a king if you kill all your subjects.

If all he wants is a cadre of sycophants he can do that quite easily by just being extremely rich. No need to go to the trouble of playing politics and actually getting elected to an office.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (3, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725152)

I never understood how governments allow such conflict of interest... if you're a politician, your job is politics. Owning companies should make you ineligible to work in politics in the first place, or there should at least be requirements to occupy a function that's completely unrelated to the companies you own.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

KibibyteBrain (1455987) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725346)

Where do you draw the line, though? For example, would you demand all politicians cash out their 401k's or other stock-holding investment accounts because technically they own a company in those arrangements? "Owning a company" is a litigiously vague statement, and anything less broad could be viewed as discrimination.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Mandelbrot-5 (471417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725482)

As far as I know that is the general rule in the US, not sure about 401k... I'm under the impression that 'our dear mayor' Bloomburg had to sell his stake in Bloomburg TV upon taking the thron^h^h^h mayorship.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (2)

Restil (31903) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725916)

There is no such rule. Politicians will generally sell their interest in companies or industries that might present a conflict of interest with their job, but if all they own are widely diversified mutual funds, about the only possible interest they would have is to ensure that the economy continues to improve, and you're unlikely to find ANY American who's against that stance.

-Restil

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725496)

Fortunately, such a distinction has already been designed for bankers, lawyers, and others who have access to private information. Usually it entails something like only allowing ownership in government securities and sufficiently diverse funds and ETFs.

One could apply this standard to politicians easily, since the legal infrastructure is already there. Then again, I might argue the restrictions for politicians should be even greater, since they could potentially manipulate the value of almost any security.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725556)

How about drawing the line at 1% ownership and/or 1% control (since some stock classes may give more votes than others, but still have equal ownership in the company). 1% is also not entirely arbitrary, IIRC that figure is used in some law or regulation regarding having a "significant interest" in a company. It is a high enough figure that regular retirement investing will not cause a problem, but yet it also excludes owning enough of a company to make abusing political power seem worthwhile.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725684)

I would suggest obligating them to have any and all holdings in a blind trust. [opensecrets.org] That's actually almost a de facto requirement in the US right now, in order to comply with disclosure rules [house.gov] .

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (0)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725884)

If only that trust could be raided to pay off debt then i would be happy.

a politicians screws up and the economy goes down? they all pay for it literally.

talk about a wave of conservative government spending in the future.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725686)

I never understood how governments allow such conflict of interest...

They don't. It's the voters who permit that. It was always known that the guy owns most of Italy's media - people still voted for him.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

JakiChan (141719) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725462)

I think the idea isn't to block just YouTube from Italy...block Italy from accessing ANY Google content. I bet the people of Italy need Google more than Google needs them.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724990)

I know, exactly!

It is just a web site. Just like Slashdot. Is this sitegoing to be considered a TV station? Are they going to try and foolishly enforce those laws on us as well?

I never understand how it is that anyone - be it in Law or in Politics or anywhere - has trouble making the distinction between what YouTube is and a TV Station.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Mister Kay (1119377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725352)

Google will pretty much have to block Italian IPs if this is the case. Another thought: does this mean that websites that serve amateur, user-submitted porn are subject to this law too? Will Italians only have access to these late at night? This law is pretty much doomed.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725506)

Google will pretty much have to block Italian IPs if this is the case.

Another thought: does this mean that websites that serve amateur, user-submitted porn are subject to this law too? Will Italians only have access to these late at night?

This law is pretty much doomed.

If China invaded the U.S., Microsoft Google et al would probably collaborate or at the very least - declare themselves neutral using the excuse that they're not really American companies. Privately - they'd probably welcome the power and profit increase collaborating would give them.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725624)

If China invaded the U.S., Microsoft Google et al would probably collaborate or at the very least - declare themselves neutral [...]

There is no probably, it well know fact that corporation collaborate with any fascist state as long as they pay. See IBM and the Nazi.

Re:Pretty much completely infeasible. (1)

Jonner (189691) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725466)

I'm sure that's exactly what Google will do if this law takes effect.

When did Italy turn into (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34724914)

A banana republic?

Re:When did Italy turn into (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34724952)

When Berlusconi was first elected as Prime Minister, in 1994. Apparently you haven't been reading the news.

I suggest you start reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Controversies [wikipedia.org]

Re:When did Italy turn into (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725082)

When Berlusconi was first elected as Prime Minister, in 1994. Apparently you haven't been reading the news.

Yeah, right. There was no corruption in Italy prior to 1994.

Re:When did Italy turn into (2)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725040)

According to Wikipedia, Berlusconi first became prime minister in 1994.

It bottles the mind how ridiculous his rule is. The guy personally owns large parts of the media in the country and gets laws passed to keep him out of trouble. The part about controversies in the Wikipedia article about him is tl;dr...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi#Controversies [wikipedia.org]

Re:When did Italy turn into (5, Funny)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725084)

Where can I purchase your bottled mind?

Re:When did Italy turn into (4, Funny)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725168)

Ah, it's a nice change from the media owning the president :)

Re:When did Italy turn into (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725320)

Wow, 16 years. 16 years is way too long for an upper leadership role in any supposedly democratic country.

Re:When did Italy turn into (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725888)

What I don't understand is how that guy is still in power, given that Italy is a democracy. If you look at his record as a politician, there's practically nothing positive there, and more negativity than all other European heads of state combined.

Re:When did Italy turn into (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725070)

In 1946.

(it was a banana kingdom before that)

Re:When did Italy turn into (1)

celle (906675) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725850)

"In 1946.

(it was a banana kingdom before that)"

Bananas is right. "Before that" isn't right as it still is "bananas".

49 BC (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725102)

When Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

Take that Italy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34724946)

In America, Dominos is legally considered pizza.

Re:Take that Italy (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725160)

Maybe, but you better be careful. If one Dominos restaurant ever goes down, they will all follow very quickly.

Re:Take that Italy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725316)

If one Dominos restaurant ever goes down, they will all follow very quickly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFLq7cyHKMg [youtube.com]

Re:Take that Italy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725324)

the dominoes around the corner closed 2 years ago.

Re:Take that Italy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725480)

Nah, just the ones that opened after the one that fell first.

Re:Take that Italy (5, Insightful)

Life2Short (593815) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725616)

If YouTube is an Italian TV Station, where are the breasts?

Wow (3, Insightful)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724948)

the obligation not to broadcast content inappropriate for children in certain time slots

Given the nature of the internet being worldwide, that would be.... never.

But seriously, how do they expect to enforce this??

Re:Wow (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724958)

GeoLocation of IP to work out the appropriate timezone perhaps?

Re:Wow (0)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724982)

Not a problem. YouTube doesn't "broadcast".

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

TheL0ser (1955440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725004)

Not a problem. YouTube doesn't "broadcast".

They're not a TV station either, but that doesn't seem to have registered with them either.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725234)

Not a problem. YouTube doesn't "broadcast".

They're not a TV station either, but that doesn't seem to have registered with them either.

Yeah.

Youtube is a television station like Mitsubishi is a television station, or like Nokia is a telephone company. Quite a silly thought.

Re:TV (3, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725510)

Sudo Youtube is a TV Station.

Re:Wow (2)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725030)

Technically you are correct but go to YouTube [youtube.com] and look at the title of the page.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725184)

That's funny. Mine says "igrearthanu's YouTube"

Re:Wow (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725142)

I just visited youtube.com and saw the following

<title>YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.</title>

Re:Wow (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725756)

I just visited youtube.com and saw the following

<title>YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.</title>

OK. 255.255.255.255

Look Ma! I'm on Television!

Re:Wow (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725026)

Simple. Youtube will stop working in Italy, probably posting something along the lines of "New government regulations make it financially unfeasible for us to continue operations in this country. For more information, please contact your representative."

After enough congresspeople (or whatever they're called in Italy) get tired of hearing people complaining that Youtube is blocked, the law gets repealed.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725098)

It's Italy, so the appropriate term is "Berlusconi's bitches."

Re:Wow (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725052)

Italy will enforce it with fines, and raids on server farms and offices within Italy, and lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. How Youtube abides by its new obligations is up to them. It's not Italy's problem.

Re:Wow (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725118)

This is perhaps a dumb question, but does Youtube even have a presence in Italy beyond the ability of people to access the videos? I mean without any sort of presence in Italy, it's a tad hard to raid the offices or compelling Google to do anything about Youtube.

Re:Wow (2)

M. Baranczak (726671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725276)

Google, Inc. has an office in Milan. [google.com]

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725386)

Not that I've RTFA, but don't take it for granted that Google can be held responsible for YouTube's actions, especially given the complex web of companies used by an organisation that size. In any case, how hard would it really be for Google to pack up their Milan office?

Re:Wow (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725492)

In any case, how hard would it really be for Google to pack up their Milan office?

Hard enough - they sell advertising and the Italian market is a nice source of income. They could do without it, but they won't want to lose it if they can somehow avoid it. It's certainly worth their time to find a way to work with these regulations, and looking at their history - that's likely what they are going to do. Just like they found a way to limit streetview in Germany (even though there was no legal requirement, and rendering it close to unusable IMO) they'll find some way to stay on the legal side.

Re:Wow (0)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725422)

I believe Google operates exclusively out of Ireland (wrt the EU) and the UK. They don't have any servers or offices in Italy that I'm aware of.

This is what happens... (5, Insightful)

rm999 (775449) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724972)

This is what happens when the leader of a country also controls the largest media conglomerate of that country. Control the media, and you control the people. Control the people, and you *keep* control of the media.

Re:This is what happens... (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725062)

Control the people, and you *keep* control of the media.

But let's see what happens when youtube starts banning Italy.

Re:This is what happens... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725330)

Let's see what happens when *Google* starts banning Italy.

Re:This is what happens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725550)

If Google/Youtube back out of Italy, my guess is Berlusconi's TV stations will start their own Italy Youtube-like service.

Re:This is what happens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725148)

Why limit your thesis to situations where a single individual controls the same? Why not expand it to areas where the media conglomerate leader is a political sympathiser? I am genuinely curious.

I come from Norway, and when it was time to select the new head of the national broadcasting unit, the prime minister (Jens Stoltenberg) and the foreign minister (Jonas Gahr Støre) went together to the person who was head of the committee selecting the new broadcast chief. They responded to criticism that this was a private visit recommending a certain person based on their personal character references made in a private capacity, and not in any political capacity at all.

Why won't you describe Norway as a fundamentally corrupt nation on that basis? It seems a little bit like you invent av very specific rule to create a certain desireable result, which is that Italy and Berlusconi must be condemned, even though the logical, natural and principled thing would be to extend the rule to situations where many other countries would be condemned as well.

Corrections? (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725008)

how do you correct keyboard cat?

Re:Corrections? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725532)

Auto-tune.

Italy won't get any more of my money. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725016)

I've purchased Asolo AFS Evoluzione boots for $300US. A pair of Spy sunglasses for $100US. A pair of La Sportiva Gandalf ascent shoes for $220US. Various Armani jeans approximately $400US boxes of Zotz candies ($100 yes I loved Zotz).

I regret purchasing products made in Italy now.

Fuck you Silvio Berlusconi. Every Italian should be ashamed of this asshole. Boycott Italian products and teach this dick a lesson. Maybe if sales drop this jerkwad will take some heat and move along.

Re:Italy won't get any more of my money. (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725100)

Unless that guy owns all the companies which made the products you listed, you will only punish Italian companies and Italian workers because of one clueless politician.

Re:Italy won't get any more of my money. (2)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725358)

And who voted that clueless politician in again?

Re:Italy won't get any more of my money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725830)

Actually the Prime Minister is appointed by the President. So NOBODY voted for him.

Call it (5, Interesting)

arcsimm (1084173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725078)

See, this is where I think Google should call Berlusconi's bluff. All they need to do is redirect Italian IPs to a page that says, "Due to the legal implications of new regulations, Google can no longer provide service to Italian site visitors" followed by a few informational links. Then, they just sit back and wait for public outcry to force the Italian government to backpedal, and continue on as usual.

Re:Call it (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725260)

You overestimate the Italian people's need for Youtube, and underestimate Berlusconi's need to keep a media monopoly going.

Re:Call it (2)

SudoGhost (1779150) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725660)

You underestimate people's need for videos of kittens doing cute things.

Re:Call it (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725268)

See, this is where I think Google should call Berlusconi's bluff. ....

So what you are saying is that Google now has the power to bring down a democratically elected government? That is scary. (and yes I said that with tongue firmly planted in cheek with respect to Italy)

Re:Call it (0)

AaronW (33736) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725448)

Part of a vibrant democracy is having an independent media that is free to report on what the government is doing without government interference. When you have media that can't say bad things about the people in power or can't report accurately on challengers then you don't really have a democracy if you think about it. I no longer consider countries like Russia or Venezuela democracies since their media is tightly controlled by the leaders in power. They're democracies in name only.

Re:Call it (1)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725486)

No, I don't think he was suggesting that YouTube could take down the government. I think he was suggesting that blocking Italians from YouTube could cause complaints that could force a review of the policies.

Re:Call it (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725598)

No, I don't think he was suggesting that YouTube could take down the government. I think he was suggesting that blocking Italians from YouTube could cause complaints that could force a review of the policies.

Which is tantamount to Google effectively triggering a no-confidence vote by the populace. Sure it would only be a minor hiccup in a very stable democracy, but in the case of Italy such an action could result in the government crashing down. Governments have been taken down for less, but typically it has been an internal source that has triggered the action. Given the persuasiveness of the Internet it could be possible for a company the size of Google to isolate a country. Yes I know that there are other search engines but if the top one at the time did something it would cause a major impact.

Re:Call it (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725690)

Especially since Google is a lot more than search. Youtube, obviously, is a pretty big deal. GMail might be a big one. Chrome's a pretty big browser nowadays. Google Maps is pretty big. Android's rather unlikely to be blocked, but it would also be a pretty big deal. Ads would be a rather odd block, but if sites aren't getting any ad revenue from Italian visitors, they might block them as well, causing a chain-reaction of sites blocking Italy.

Re:Call it (2)

Motard (1553251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725866)

Which is tantamount to Google effectively triggering a no-confidence vote by the populace.

No it isn't. Whining != Insurrection. Response to whining != capitulation.

Sure it would only be a minor hiccup in a very stable democracy, but in the case of Italy such an action could result in the government crashing down.

Berlusconi is the longest serving head of state of any of the G8, fer chrissakes.

Given the persuasiveness of the Internet it could be possible for a company the size of Google to isolate a country.

The internet doesn't have any inherent persuasiveness. Not any more than radio waves.

Re:Call it (4, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725500)

So what you are saying is that Google now has the power to bring down a democratically elected government?

No, he's saying its people do. And this is how it's supposed to be.

Re:Call it (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725580)

Google went toe-to-toe with the People's Republic of China, arguably the second-most-powerful nation on the planet. And they won. Sure, China didn't exactly lose, but Google got exactly what it wanted.

Maga-corporations have nearly as much power as governments. Fortunately, Google seems to be one of the "good guys", for a slightly looser definition of "good" than I prefer.

Re:Call it (1)

deetoy (1576145) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725370)

I think the issue will rapidly become more complex. Berlusconi is there because of a cultural difference in Italy. The thinking that might be popular in Slashdot culture could well backfire.
Copyrighted material on youtube is an issue that needs a resolution. Youtube experiences a benefit from providing copyrighted content, yes they have difficulties controlling who publishes x via their service. Some copyright owners have/will turn a blind eye to their content being pirated due to the free publicity/promotional value.

Changing the ball game to a win-win scenario is inevitable and what I'd expect from google.
I'm expecting to see this manifest itself as -
Better automation of copyright infringement detection.
Improved kiddysafe / Adult content flagging.
Negotiations with major copyright owners, advertisers and marketers is another.

Re:Call it (1)

arcsimm (1084173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725600)

The problem is not just that of copyrighted content -- the other requirements of the legislation are particularly onerous for video services, which are more akin to a cable television service than a TV station. Youtube has no direct editorial input over what its users put up, and can only filter or exclude videos after-the-fact and not preemptively, as a TV station usually can. Even then, keep in mind, that Youtube now recieves almost 6 years of video every 24 hours. Berlusconi has effectively made the cost of Youtube doing business in Italy so high that (should the inevitable legal challenges to the law fail) it's most likely more cost-effective to just shut the county out, and hope the fallout causes Berlusconi to change his tune.

Re:Call it (1)

next_ghost (1868792) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725802)

Copyrighted material on youtube is an issue that needs a resolution.

And that resolution should be fundamental overhaul of the Berne convention and national copyright laws.

Re:Call it (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725564)

No, that's what Silvio wants them to do. His goal is to eliminate major public venues in Italy that can be critical of him, he does most of that by owning the mass media, but he doesn't (and probably can't) buy Google. So if nobody in Italy can access Youtube, from Berlusconi's point of view the problem is solved.

Re:Call it (1)

blarkon (1712194) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725744)

If Google did have the ability to adverse the government of any nation, they need to be regulated like a mofo. At what point does it become okay for a company to try to bring down a government?

Re:Call it (2)

arcsimm (1084173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725818)

At what point does it become okay for a company to try to bring down a government?

I'd say that it's about the point where the government allows itself to become a pawn to another corporation. At that point, what else are you supposed to do?

I was about to laugh, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725104)

  • a small tax (500 €) - Entirely affordable;
  • the obligation to publish corrections within 48 hours - easily automated; put up a form for people to fill in their name, etc. and create a (rendered) talking head video (with odd-sounding synthetic voice, of course)
  • the obligation not to broadcast content inappropriate for children in certain time slots - also pretty simple, since most of that content is already flagged, IPs can ben easily blocked, etc.

... or just block Italy completely, and wait until Berlusconi gets thrown out of the country.

Re:I was about to laugh, but... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725188)

just block Italy completely, and wait until Berlusconi gets thrown out of the country.

And to make the joke complete, make sure someone gets that on video and then upload it to YouTube.

YouTube will have the last laugh (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725156)

All this will wind up doing is forcing YouTube to block Italian IP addresses. Problem solved. Then it's up to the outcries of the Italian people to get this retarding ruling reversed.

Re:YouTube will have the last laugh (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725288)

Google should one-up Berlusconi & block Italian IPs throughout all it's servers.

Pantolone. (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725286)

this is what happens if you elect a clown as prime minister. eventually your country becomes laughed at.

Re:Pantolone. (1)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725408)

this is what happens if you elect a clown as prime minister. eventually your country becomes laughed at.

So are you a US citizen? Just curious.

Re:Pantolone. (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725586)

Trust me, America's gotten laughed at plenty. Everybody just laughs quietly, or behind our backs, because we've got enough firepower to end any country around.

Re:Pantolone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725438)

Right, no one was laughing at Italy before this guy was around.

Risk of having international offices (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725468)

If Google has no physical presence in Italy, they can tell Berlusconi to fuck off. The problem is that Google has servers and people all over the freakin' world. They may want to rethink that. As long as they insist on having Google employees "on the ground" around the globe, they're going to be hostage to random tin horn dictators and/or braindead legal systems. Google should consider sending shipping containers full of servers from the US to $(RandomCountry), and contracting with local IT people to maintain them (e.g. swap out the dead servers/drives from stock of spares). Strategic use of encryption can probably keep Google's secret sauce safe. If $(RandomDictatorship) wants to play hardball, the worst they could do is seize the equipment. Google can afford it. Meanwhile, they can continue serving search, youtube, etc., from servers in a nearby country.

Hey look, a loophole... (3, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725568)

"The main change, though, is that YouTube and similar sites will be legally responsible of all published content as long as they have any form (even if automated) of editorial control."

Fine. Get rid of editorial control. All of it.

But then the Italian version of the RIAA/MPAAA/ASCAP/Insert your acronym here, are barred from suing, because there isn't any responsibility for the content except by the posters themselves.

Sounds fine by me.

--
BMO

Re:Hey look, a loophole... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725882)

"The main change, though, is that YouTube and similar sites will be legally responsible of all published content as long as they have any form (even if automated) of editorial control."

Fine. Get rid of editorial control. All of it.

But then the Italian version of the RIAA/MPAAA/ASCAP/Insert your acronym here, are barred from suing, because there isn't any responsibility for the content except by the posters themselves.

Sounds fine by me.

--
BMO

Won't work. Some *AA shill will upload kiddie porn, then someone else reports it.

Now, does YouTube breach the "no editorial control" loophole or get taken offline for knowingly distributing child porn?

The loophole doesn't exist because there is no such thing as "absolutely no editorial control" so long as absolute freedom of speech (however heinous it may be) is disallowed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?