Can the internet really be left to its own devices?
BBC website, 31st July: Video websites must vet content – “YouTube has been criticised by MPs, who say it must do more to vet its content. In a review of net safety, the Culture, Media and Sport select committee said a new industry body should be set up to protect children from harmful content. It also said it should be “standard practice” for sites hosting user-generated content to review material proactively. In its report, the committee said that some websites it had monitored as part of its review had a “lax” approach to removing illegal content. It said it was “shocked” that the industry standard for removing child abuse images was 24 hours.”
Independent, 31st July: YouTube videos should be given ‘18′ certificate, MPs say – “Films posted on video-sharing websites such as YouTube should carry age certificates and those with pornographic or violent content should be subject to a television-style “watershed”, MPs say today.”
Telegraph, 31st July: Berlusconi’s broadcast group declares war on YouTube – “Mediaset, which is controlled by the billionaire media mogul Silvio Berlusconi and his family, said it was seeking damages of “at least” 500 million euros (£398 million) from YouTube and its owner Google, for alleged “illegal distribution and commercial use of audio and video files. A trawl through the YouTube site on 10 June allegedly revealed 4,643 clips and 325 hours of Mediaset material, according to a statement by the company, which broadcasts three of Italy’s six terrestrial channels.”
So, over to my readers. The internet contains millions of files uploaded by users which by and large are harmless, but there is unquestionably a darker side to some of the content which mostly goes unchecked. Is this really acceptable? My first instinct says no and there should be substantial penalties for any firm failing to remove illegal material immediately. The defence of websites such as YouTube always seems to be that monitoring the content on their site is very difficult so we shouldn’t expect too much, but how can we let that pass as a reason for allowing certain content to be put online? Surely if they can’t keep up with the problem that they have created, they should be held liable?
Witanagemot Blogs
you can hold them as liable as you like if a) you can catch them, and b) they are in a jurisdiction which will allow you to hold them liable – dream on!!!
That’s a good question, actually. I’ve no idea where YouTube’s servers are, but if they’re not in Italy or the UK, doesn’t that mean British and Italian politicians can go whistle for all the good it will do?
And I find any suggestion of certification of online videos to be absolutely laughable. The ratings system in the UK is a load of subjective nonsense. Applying it to other media will just spread the hilarity.
Liability in cases like these just isn’t very straighforward, unfortunately, due to the complexity of definition. If someone stores illegal drugs or explosive devices in a rented locker, is the owner of the locker criminally liable? Isn’t the locker owner’s defence going to be that monitoring the content of their lockers is very difficult (and possibly illegal) so we shouldn’t expect too much of them?
What if we argue that storing real-word objects is different to digital files and telecommunication systems? Do we hold BT liable because a criminal gang uses the telephone system to plan a robbery? Surely if BT can’t keep up with the problem that they have created, they should be held liable?
“It said it was “shocked” that the industry standard for removing child abuse images was 24 hours.”
That’s just showing ignorance regarding how digital systems work. We’re talking about a staggering amount of data being uploaded to servers around the world every single day. Monitoring the data interchange is an impossible task due to sheer scale. Any company that’s able to consistantly locate and remove illegal content within 24 hours is doing a damned impressive job.
Not sure the locker owner analogy works in this context, because the locker owner has no idea what’s being stored inside the locker, whereas YouTube and indeed the entire world can see what is being stored on YouTube so the issue of non-detection is neutered.
“Monitoring the data interchange is an impossible task due to sheer scale.”
But this is precisely my point. If you argue that it is impossible to prevent child abuse images making their way onto YouTube, is it morally acceptable to allow YouTube to exist? I’m sure that there is an argument to say that we can’t fight it so we should just get on with life, but this strikes me as a very very serious dilemma.
In addition, if we had a central organisation that illegal content was reported to by internet users, I bet you a lot of the content could be identified quicker than 24 hours. At the moment, it strikes me that there is little onus on websites such as YouTube to do anything very proactive, which is what the MPs are saying.
“Is this really acceptable? “
It’s human nature. You might as well castigate the police for not stopping each and every crime, from murder down to spitting in the street. Do you have any idea what that would take?
I don’t want to live in a society where that’s possible. Nor do I want to live in a society where my freedom of expression is left to clueless, techologically-stunted crackpots like John Whittingdale…
“..YouTube and indeed the entire world can see what is being stored on YouTube ..”
Only if they look at it. And why should they…?
“If you argue that it is impossible to prevent child abuse images making their way onto YouTube, is it morally acceptable to allow YouTube to exist? “
“If you argue that it is impossible to prevent people drawing obscene pictures, is it morally acceptable to allow paper and pencils ro exist?”
Not so cut and dried now, is it…? And yees, I’m aware we don’t ‘need’ YouTube. But I for one think it’d be a poorer world without it.
What this boils down to (apart from meddlesome MPs desiring more power over areas they don’t currently control, egged on by attention-seeking idiots like Tim Ireland and the media who sees itself losing it’s grip on information) is that personal responsibility is passe, and people are either desiring of a Big Daddy to make choices for them, or ignorant of exactly what is planned…
“In addition, if we had a central organisation that illegal content was reported to by internet users…”
Yes,more central government regulation! That’s what we need….
“Is it morally acceptable to allow YouTube to exist?”
Yes, because plenty of things can be used to facilitate crimes that are not in and of themselves illegal, and in fact are used by the majority of the population for perfectly acceptable purposes. The existence of printing presses allows copies of child abuse images to be reproduced. It doesn’t mean we should ban printing presses, or even that we have a realistic way of monitoring what presses are used for.
The key problem here is access and availability. It was never as serious an issue before now because the means of creating and reproducing illegal material was never as easy as it currently is.
(Sorry, Julia, our posts must have crossed over. I didn’t mean to repeat your point.)
Sorry, LFaT, but this is going to be a really long response, because it’s a really complicated question. The way I see it there’s three issues here: copyrighted content; legitimate pornographic content; and illegal content.
Illegal content first, because that’s probably the easiest. YouTube are already very proactive on this – you may say there’s no incentive, but if they didn’t crack down on these things they’d rapidly find themselves losing millions of users (I know I wouldn’t use a video site where I could never be certain whether what I was about to watch was legal or within the bounds of taste). 24 hours is not a bad turn around time, and the only way to bring that down is hire thousands of vetters at great expense. The fact is that YouTube still isn’t profitable (due to their bandwidth costs they’re hemorrhaging money), and so such steps would likely cause the site to close down – which answers your question about whether it acceptable to allow them to exist, I suppose.
Concerning porn, at one point ICANN were going to add a .xxx domain and force all pornographic material to stop using .com and .net and so on. The idea was to create an ‘online red light district’, force all the porn into that one space, and then ISPs, schools and safe internet services could just block .xxx domains to remove pornography. Unfortunately, the proposals weren’t put through because of strong opposition from groups like ‘Mothers of America’ – who had seemingly misunderstood the implications of the idea and decided it would legitamise online pornography. So, we still have to deal with porn all over the place because of mothers groups. “Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony”
Copyrighted content is a difficult one. The argument has long ranged over the effect of media videos appearing on YouTube. The consensus view among indie producers appears to be that your videos appearing on YouTube in breach of copyright actually raises awareness in your content and brings new viewers. I seem to recall that when Comedy Central forced YouTube to pull down all their videos, their new viewer numbers started decreasing. The copyright argument is a storm in a teacup and a sign that the old media companies don’t know which way is up any more.
So, to answer the original question, can the internet really be left to its own devices, the answer is ‘no’, but much of it is already strongly regulated. What I don’t understand is why somebody with images of child abuse would put them on YouTube – I would have thought there’d be plenty of illegitimate underground forums and newsgroups for that sort of thing.
“Sorry, Julia, our posts must have crossed over. I didn’t mean to repeat your point.”
No worries. The more people who emphasise this particular point, loudly and often, the better…
“…the proposals weren’t put through because of strong opposition from groups like ‘Mothers of America’ – who had seemingly misunderstood the implications of the idea…”
Stu, I think you’re being a little too generous in your assumption of groups like MOA’s beliefs. I doubt that they really did just ‘misunderstand’. I think they realised that if a solution like this one was found, they’d lose momentum in their complaints.
They don’t want a segregated net with a little corner for the pervs and wierdos. They want a controlled net, and if they can say ‘it’s everywhere!’ they can get closer to that goal…
“The fact is that YouTube still isn’t profitable (due to their bandwidth costs they’re hemorrhaging money), and so such steps would likely cause the site to close down”
Having lots of people scouring the site for illegal content would cost a lot of money, but the high cost is not an argument for having low expectations of their removal of illegal content. Personally, I don’t give a damn how much it costs them – illegal content is illegal. If legal action costs a television company viewers, that’s their problem.
I daresay I’ve dabbled in downloading music and films in the past at some point, but for a site to host illegal content is different from something like BitTorrent where the files are not situated in one place. Even though I think record and TV companies fighting the internet will ultimately be pointless, they still have every right to expect their copyright to be adhered to and should be financially compensated by those who break it by hosting illegal content like YouTube.
Madeley, you made the valid point that “it was never as serious an issue before now because the means of creating and reproducing illegal material was never as easy as it currently is”, but this is exactly what I’m getting at. The laws we have are totally ill-equipped to deal with the way that content flows around the internet and I think they are not strong enough.
When you upload a video to YouTube, you are provided with the following caution…
“Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you created yourself. The Copyright Tips page and the Community Guidelines can help you determine whether your video infringes someone else’s copyright.
By clicking “Upload Video,” you are representing that this video does not violate YouTube’s Terms of Use and that you own all copyrights in this video or have authorisation to upload it.”
Here are a few relevent highlights from those Terms of Use.
“1.3 The Terms form a legally binding agreement between you and YouTube in relation to your use of the Services. It is important that you take the time to read them carefully.”
…
“9.1 You agree that your conduct on the site will comply with (and you agree that the content of all of your User Submissions shall comply with) the YouTube Community Guidelines, found at http://uk.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines, as updated from time to time.
9.2 You agree that you will not post or upload any User Submissions which contain content which it is unlawful for you to possess in the country in which you are resident, or which it would be unlawful for YouTube to use or possess in connection with the provision of the Services.”
So, should YouTube be held accountable? No. Because if you upload illegal material (I believe that that covers child abuse in just about every civilised country in the world), then you have breached the terms of the contract.
In which case, YouTube would have every right to come after you and sue you for every single penny that you own .
DK
Iain Blair recommended this site. He was wrong. What a stupid lot of stuffed shirt British cowards you are. I am glad you chaps don’t have a Bill of Rights, you are too worthless to deserve one.
Thank you Robert for that incisive critique of my blog. I look forward to your constructive feedback in future.
DK, I assume that this post led you to comment on Iain Dale’s site that I was some lunatic authoritarian hell-bent on the government controlling our minds and actions. YouTube may well have terms and conditions in place to stop people behaving like this, but what if it doesn’t stop people uploading copyrighted material? Is a simple ‘don’t do it’ in their terms and conditions acceptable when it comes to uploading illegal content? I hardly think so.