

Italy wants citizens to officially apply to upload YouTube videos - ilamont
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2010/01/15/proposed-web-video-restrictions-cause-outrage-italy

======
zaatar
Related news ... ?

Some Italian guy posted a discriminatory video on Youtube Italy, four top
Google Executives now have arrest warrants in Italy, and cannot be anywhere in
the EU (due to reciprocal extradition treaties). The Head of Google Video
Europe moved to Google UK to head Consumer Marketing in consequence, cannot
travel anywhere within the EU at this time, and who knows for how much longer?

References:

[1] [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/google-
executives-f...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/google-executives-
face-jail-time-for-italian-video/) [2]
[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/technology/17google.html?_...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/technology/17google.html?_r=2)

~~~
ciupicri
UK is a member of the EU.

~~~
electromagnetic
For the UK it depends whether the warrant was EU-wide or just Italian. If it
was Italian, they can get anyone in mainland Europe very easily. However,
IIRC, this is due to the Schengen area and the lack of borders. As the UK kind
of has a border issue, being an island and all, it's hard to apply the
Schengen laws.

~~~
vetinari
UK is not a part of Schengen area, so it is not just being island and all.

------
davidw
This article seems to be saying something slightly different:

[http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2010/01/15/news/decreto_...](http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2010/01/15/news/decreto_tv_google_e_i_provider_preoccupati_per_effetti_sul_web-1955476/)

Basically it makes video services like Youtube responsible for their contents,
which is still bad, but is certainly not "individuals must apply to the
government to upload videos".

So I think it's either a bad translation or someone playing fast and loose
with the actual facts in order to create some traffic.

~~~
lssndrdn
There's another article on Repubblica that describes the proposed decree in
more detail.

[http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2010/01/14/news/decreto_...](http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2010/01/14/news/decreto_sulla_tv_la_denuncia_delle_opposizioni_giro_di_vite_su_internet_e_sul_cinema_indipendente-1947217/)

In the last paragraph, it says that the rules for tv broadcasting would be
applied to websites that provide video (meaning they would be subject to
governmental approval).

~~~
davidw
Yes, the websites would come under the authority of the government. That's
plenty bad, but what the original article in English says is:

> New rules to be introduced by government decree will require _people who
> upload videos_ onto the Internet to obtain authorization

~~~
crocowhile
That is wrong. What this law says is that content providers are directly
responsible for what users publish or upload. The reason to this decree is
that one year ago Mediaset (Berlusconi's TV group) sued youtube for publishing
a lot of copyrighted material and asked for 0.5 Billions ( see
[http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/italian_tv_company_medi...](http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/italian_tv_company_mediaset_su.php)
or google "mediaset yotube").

If this new bill will pass (and it will) then youtube will be deemed
responsible for copyright infringement. This has nothing to do with users
asking for authorization.

~~~
ErrantX
I think there is some slight sense in amongst this, if only slight.

(Assuming we can drop any argument of copyright being right/wrong for the
moment.. for the record I believe it is broken)

It makes sense that sites like Youtube (who after all are actually the ones
making most of the money here!) are given some of the responsibility for
making sure whatever rules we insist on are not broken.

As I read it this law goes too far; but I think it is more a misguided move in
the roughly right direction more than anything else. If we can get a _really
serious revision_ of what copyright means (this is important, and I think it
is coming if slowly - but it has to be done next I think for the rest to work)
and force the content hosts to take some culpability for whatever rules we
eventually decide on then I think things would be on the right track.

edit: Im not shocked at the downvote: but Im interested in hearing counter
arguments / what specifically seems illogical?

~~~
blueben
Why is it Google's responsibility to become the Internet Police? Is Italy
going to pay for those policing costs? Would you be happy if your government
press ganged you into police service without compensation?

Lets call this for what it really is. This isn't about copyright. This is
about dismantling a free media system which competes with a corrupt Italian
government's ability to control public opinion.

~~~
ErrantX
As I said this kind of thing goes way too far. But it would be nice to see
server providers realising they also have to make reasonable effort to prevent
abuse of their own system. Especially if they make money from it.

------
acangiano
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of why I left my country back in
2003.

~~~
dotcoma
'Tis an unweeded garden, That Grows to seed; Things rank and gross in nature
Possess it merely.

------
protomyth
I would assume this would mean that any internet startup in Italy might want
to move. Who knows what other types of content will get hit.

------
antirez
Rephrase this as "Berlusconi government composed of stupid ministers" wants to
officially apply ...

As part of Italy really understand how stupid is this, and is just praying to
see this unqualified junk to go away from our government.

Also don't worry anyway as our laws are rarely applied. For instance we had
for some time, a few years ago, a law that "forced" every web site owner to
print the content in A4 paper and sent it to some government address. Not sure
if I should smile or cry.

------
pavel_lishin
_The decree was also condemned by Articolo 21, an organization dedicated to
the defense of freedom of speech as enshrined in article 21 of the Italian
constitution._

So what are the first 20 dedicated to?

~~~
ugh
Fundamental principles, other rights:
[http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costit...](http://www.senato.it/documenti/repository/istituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf)
[pdf]

The freedom of speech article is the ninth of the rights. A bit late as
constitutions go (USA: first, Germany: fifth) but pretty consistent with many
Europeans’ views on freedom of speech. In many European states free speech is
not the same sort of fundamental right as it is in the US. Important, sure,
but not quite as.

~~~
eru
> The freedom of speech article is the ninth of the rights. A bit late as
> constitutions go (USA: first, Germany: fifth) but pretty consistent with
> many Europeans’ views on freedom of speech. In many European states free
> speech is not the same sort of fundamental right as it is in the US.
> Important, sure, but not quite as.

In defense of Germany: In the US rights come as amendments. The German
constitution starts out with the human (and civil) rights at the very
beginning. (Yes, someone wanted to distance themself from the Nazis.)

~~~
fleitz
If you want to get technical about the US constitution the constitution merely
enumerates SOME of the rights that exist, it certainly does not grant them,
the ones listed are simply not disputed (what the right entails certainly is).
The US constitution should really be viewed more as enumerating the rights of
the government, as all rights not explicitly granted FROM the people TO the US
gov't vest with the states or the people.

The Federal Gov't actually gets most of it's power in legal theory from a
serious abuse of the interstate commerce clause.

You'll notice that the US constitution doesn't actually grant a right of free
speech, it prevents congress making laws abridging the freedom.

~~~
ugh
Well. Yes it does. Sure it does.

You may not share that opinion, but the way the court sees it counts, not the
way you see it. A constitution is more than a piece of paper.

------
aurora72
In a satellite channel (broadcast in english by the Italian) I had once
watched a program where it was reported that the chief cameraman in Italian
parliament had a salary more than (or in a comparable level as) the Prime
Minister! It was all demonstrated by the numbers and I was shocked. So when I
heard the news that Italy wanted to put such an obstacle for the Internet, I'm
not particularly surprised.

------
gojomo
Italy, France, China: the new axis against Google?

