I don’t think that anyone has really realised how much the web 2.0 stuff is going to affect law and the courts and judgements on defamation and privacy. If web 1.0 was bad enough – html savvy pissed off punters creating a page that a handful of people could find and view, what do we think the limits are of everyone from 11 year olds up creating anti-marketing, anti-advertising, anti-privacy campaigns? From the SMH:
A Brazilian judge has ordered YouTube to find a way to stop Brazilians from viewing steamy footage of supermodel Daniela Cicarelli and her boyfriend on the highly trafficked video-sharing site, court officials said Thursday.
YouTube provides a self publishing tool. They should just tell the courts “we are like Xerox copiers, we don’t control how it is used” and tell ’em to piss off. Get it out in the open once and for all. I think that what was all those court cases that Google took on last year – remember? the one’s in Belgium etc?
The judge said YouTube must find a way to use filters so the clip stops popping up in Brazil on the site owned by Google. Lawyer Rubens Decousseau Tilkian, who represents Cicarelli’s boyfriend, said YouTube had not gone far enough to prevent access to the clip because people keep posting it using different names for the video.
“The Internet is democratic and has to be defended, but this struggle is to have some level of control to avoid the violations of people’s fundamental rights, like privacy and intimacy,” Tilkian said in a phone interview.
Good luck to the Judge on that one.
It’s not YouTube’s first brush with litigation, although disputes have often been over copyright. In July, independent news reporter Robert Tur sued YouTube in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, claiming footage of his was posted and circulated without his permission.
YouTube also deleted nearly 30,000 files after a Japanese entertainment trade group complained, and through negotiations with leading U.S. copyright holders agreed to deploy an audio-signature technology that can spot specific clips.
When it bought YouTube in November, Google set aside shares now worth about $US220 million as a financial cushion to cover losses or possible legal bills for the frequent copyright violations on YouTube’s video-sharing site.
Meanwhile, Google last September appealed a Brazilian federal judge’s order to turn over information on users of the company’s Orkut social-networking service.
Google insisted it already had complied with court requests to identify individuals accused of using Orkut to spread child pornography and engage in hate speech against blacks, Jews and homosexuals.
The company has said it is open to data requests from foreign governments as long as they comply with U.S. laws and are issued within the country in which the information is stored.
In other words, tell the courts to chase Citizen Journalist, Citizen Editor and Citizen Distributor and leave poor ol’ Google alone? Heh. I wonder what Daniela and her bf were up to? Oh. That.
Incidentally, were YouTube serious?
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec 31 AFP – YouTube and Warner Music Group rang in the new year online despite a seemingly broken promise by the superstar video-sharing website to have an anti-piracy system in place by 2007.
The show of holiday harmony came as YouTube evidently missed a self-imposed deadline to deploy a system to prevent piracy of copyrighted music.
Creating and installing an “advanced content identification and royalty reporting system” was at the heart of a precedent-setting agreement between YouTube and Warner in September.
Google bought YouTube a month later in a $US1.65 billion ($A2.09 billion) stock deal and company leaders proclaimed they would tap into the Internet search powerhouse’s resources to grow and address technical challenges.
Warner agreed to let YouTube distribute its library of music videos, artist interviews, and other content and allow people to incorporate the music from its catalogue into works they create and post on the website.
YouTube vowed to have a piracy-prevention system in place by year’s end as a caveat of the “first-of-its-kind” alliance to sell Warner music and share the revenues.
Rest of it here at the SMH. Somehow I don’t feel so bad about already breaking my New Year’s resolutions. Nope, not telling…