Brazilian ISPs Told To Block YouTube Until Google Shuts It Down

from the proxy-servers,-anyone? dept

Following the Brazilian court order last week demanding Google shut down YouTube because of a racy video involving a well-known model having sex on the beach, a Brazilian ISP has stepped up to block all access to YouTube. The judge's order did note that ISPs should block the site until Google either takes it down or can guarantee that the video in question will no longer be available -- but so far it appears that only this one ISP has complied. This whole thing seems particularly pointless. All of the legal wrangling over the video has only made it much more popular around the world -- and there are plenty of other sites showing it, and for every site that the Brazilian government decides to shut down or that a Brazilian ISP tries to block, plenty of others will show up. Trying to ban it completely only gives it that much more attention and guarantees that many more people will see it. In the meantime, all the customers of this particular ISP (Brasil Telecom) will get pissed off that their ISP is blocking all of the perfectly legitimate videos on YouTube on the chance that someone might upload yet another copy of the sex video (which YouTube has quickly been removing every time it's been added). This ruling doesn't protect anyone, guarantees more people will see the video and annoys plenty of legitimate users. It's hard to see how that makes any sense for anyone.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    misanthropic humanist, 9 Jan 2007 @ 1:49am

    Re: Re: all publicity

    "What if cyber-bullies invent accusations? How do you prove your innocence?"

    You don't. You ignore it like an adult.

    Example: Dorpus is a crack addict.

    Do you care? Honestly? (I sincerely hope you don't). Tomorrow this comment will be flushed off the board into the obscurity of the TechDirt database. In fact, if I were browsing and stumbled upon it I would think... hmm what kind of a prick is "misanthropic humanist" making unsubstantiated accusations about some guy he never met.

    "Any stranger can surreptitiously take pictures of you with a camera, without you realizing it."

    Anyone could walk up to me in the street and stick a knife in my back. Do I live in constant fear of that? Of course not. Do I think that knives and streets should be banned? Of course not.

    "They can upload the pictures (altered to show you commiting crimes) from public terminals, where tracking down is impossible."

    That would be defamation and possibly other crimes depending on your juristiction, hence a matter for the police who are rather better than you might think at tracking down these things.

    "somebody created a sensational story about Mrs. Miggins"

    Same thing here.

    "What if dozens, hundreds of people decide to destroy your reputation, so it is not possible to track them down?"

    They just increased 100 times the chances of tracking down any one of them to make a very nasty example of.

    Having said all that, some people do deserve negative attention. Where that is based on demonstrable truth it is an absolute defence and justification. One should never live ones life in fear that others might lie and gossip about you, nor should one be afraid to point out the crimes of others, just be damn sure you got your facts straight before taking your greivance further.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.