kinda bullshit
I don't usually drop in on this stuff, but it's absurd that Google is taking the stance that this is a violation of freedom of speech, when they actively censor videos of much less questionable content.
I agree it is a little hypocritical of Google to play the "free speech" card when talking about Youtube. But strictly speaking, they only take down videos when they are flagged. In this case, they took down the video as soon as they were notified. --60.36.179.50 (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
They're not trying to argue that being made to remove the video was a violation of freedom of speech. What they are saying is that this verdict implies that they would have to pre-screen every single video that is uploaded to Youtube in order to make sure it is acceptable before allowing it to go live on the site, which is a ridiculous and unfeasible demand given how popular such sites are. Then there might as well be no site for all the chance there is of getting your uploaded video to be visible within a sensible timeframe.
The problem is that if site hosts are to be considered responsible for the content uploaded to it by their users, their incentive for allowing anyone to upload things is gone. For fear of being sued, that functionality becomes extremely restricted or gone entirely. This is where the curtailment of freedom of speech occurs - by taking away venues for people to speak.
"What they are saying is that this verdict implies that they would have to pre-screen every single video that is uploaded to Youtube in order to make sure it is acceptable before allowing it to go live on the site, which is a ridiculous and unfeasible demand given how popular such sites are."
Exactly: bullshit. All this ruling states is that (just like here in the US for the last 100 or so years), a company may not use your image, likeness or identity for profit without your consent.
If you value your freedom (of speech or otherwise), you'd do well to think before you curse a law that protects the very essence of that freedom: the right to privacy.
Stop blabbering on about the internet. This case has little (if anything) to do with the internet, and Google is not the internet. Google is a for profit internet-based company. This ruling protects the rights of the individual over the interests of corporate America, which is exactly as it should be.
For Google to have won, they would've had to do one of two things:
A) Not produce ad-revenue by advertising alongside the video B) Remove the video when the person whose likeness was shown asked it to be removed
This is hardly, nay, absolutely nowhere near, the type of censorship or curtailment of the 1st Amendment that you and the rest of the GoogleFUD campaigns are trying to sell everyone. Currently, any content hosting provider (ie - YouTube) has to take down all disputed videos pending review (if requested), and no precedent was set in this case that hasn't already been set in the US for a century.
The only question that was answered in this case (and answered here in the US, again, a loooong time ago) is whether or not YOU are the IMPLICIT COPYRIGHT HOLDER of YOUR LIKENESS and IDENTITY.
Sorry to say it kids, cause I know you're trying really hard, but you have to stop believing everything the loudest voices are saying to you. Sometimes they don't have your interests in mind, but they want you to think they do.