mrocktor Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Recently a brazillian celebrity got herself filmed having sex with her boyfriend on a beach, in Spain (where it is illegal, incidentally). The video spread quickly on the net, obviously. She sued to have the video removed from all content hosts, citing violation of her right to her image, privacy and honor. Unsurprizingly the judge ruled in her favor, despite the fact that she was in public, the images were not used for commercial purposes and that she actually did have sex on the public beach - so she deserves any effects on her honor that may entail. Since YouTube did not promptly comply with the decision, the judge has ordered that access to the video be blocked by all brazilian ISPs. Obviously the only way to do so is to completely block the site - which is being done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_Connery Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think this specific example is flawed, but the website is full of pirated content, and I think could be banned on those grounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidV Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) YouTube is owned by Google and has signed agreements with CBS and Universal Music Group, among other rights holders. They police their content and remove copyrighted material on request. They are introducing audio-signature technology, which automatically identifies and removes copyrighted works. More generally, banning any website is a horrible idea. It requires a pervasive state-run surveillance and censorship system such as in China and Saudi Arabia. Nothing on the Internet can be banned easily or completely, so controls must continually be made more totalitarian and global. Edited January 9, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I think this specific example is flawed, but the website is full of pirated content, and I think could be banned on those grounds.Naw, it shouldn't be. We've got a fairly decent law about this in the US, and they are fully in compliance with the law from what I can tell. Unfortunately I haven't seen the video, but I don't think there is any issue of piracy here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrocktor Posted January 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2007 Update: In a follow on ruling the judge stated that the site should not be blocked, only the offending content (which is impossible, he basically capitulated). Interestingly, he did not admit to error in his prior ruling. He stated: "Blocking the site has caused a series of comments, which is natural since it is a pioneering decision, with no legal support. The incident confirms that the Judiciary can successfully impose restrictive measures against local and foreign companies that disrespect judicial decisions. In this context the result was positive." So, the judge admits to ruling with no basis in law and celebrates the effectivenes of using governmental coercion to enforce his unsupported ruling. And gives no reason for his block the site/dont block the site flip flop. This country is in deep, deep fecal matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.