Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

YouTube Blocked in Brazil

Posted by Zonk on Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:47 PM
from the down-with-love dept.
keeboo writes "The popular video sharing site YouTube is now blocked in Brazil due to a local court decision last Thursday. The site was ordered to block the uploaded sex videos of Brazilian media starlet Daniela Cicarelli and, although it complied, many users kept re-uploading it to the site. After the failure of YouTube to keep the video off of the site, the domain was blocked nationwide at a DNS level. Predictably, many Brazilians are annoyed and I've started to receive even SPAMs protesting on this blocking. From the article: 'The case now goes automatically to a three-member panel of judges who will decide whether to make the order permanent and whether to fine YouTube as much as US$119,000 (euro91,000) for each day the video was viewable, said Rubens Decousseau Tilkian.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Tokyo Demands YouTube Play Fair 239 comments
eldavojohn writes "Recently, the city government of Tokyo has requested that political speeches to be pulled from YouTube, claiming that it gave certain hopefuls an advantage over others for Sunday's election. You may recall YouTube being in trouble with more than a few countries in the past. 'Japanese election law limits the broadcasting of speeches, which are aired only on public broadcaster NHK. Soon after the race kicked off last month, the speech by one fringe candidate, street musician Koichi Toyama, 36, has become a popular attraction on YouTube due to his eccentric, confrontational approach.' Is it fair that some government officials are being viewed more on YouTube than others or is it simply leveling the playing field for anyone with a message since it costs very little to put a video on YouTube?"
[+] Your Rights Online: Brazil Voids Merck Patent On AIDS Drug 765 comments
JoeBackward writes "Merck has this useful anti-AIDS drug Elfavirenz, and Brazil has lots of poor people with AIDS. So, after trying really hard to get Merck to cooperate on pricing, the Brazilian government has decided to take a 'compulsory license' to the patent, and get the drug from a factory in India. This compulsory license is basically a way to take the patent by eminent domain." This move gives Brazil one more thing in common with Thailand, both of which have blocked YouTube. Thailand's compulsory licensing of Elfavirenz and Plavix has landed the country on the US's watch list for piracy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Of course! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jason Straight (58248) on Saturday January 06 2007, @10:50PM (#17494260) Homepage
    Of course they are all angry it's blocked! They want to see the damn video!
  • Work around? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swimin (828756) on Saturday January 06 2007, @10:50PM (#17494262)
    If it was really on blocked at the DNS level, wouldn't running your own DNS server work? If youtube IP blocks were blocked, then obviously something more complicated would be needed. What about a proxy?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      http://www.opendns.com/

      Silly politicians, thinking they can block by hostname and keep the server inaccessable...

      Only effective way to do it is by IP, and then you have to be sure to watch for IP changes.

    • Re:Work around? (Score:5, Informative)

      by andreum (131900) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:46PM (#17494688)

      No, it was not a DNS block. Brasil Telecom (serving south, center-west and part of the north) blocked it, probably using route or packet filters against youtube IP addresses.

      There was a judge that ordered the video down and the remedy was decided by a justice from a state supreme court. Only it seems that the justice thought that he was ordering only the video down, because it seems he was told that carriers would just have to implement filters, which they are capable of doing (they are). According to an interview he gave, he thinks that those filters would only block that video.

      I wrote about that in my crappy vox blog here [vox.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      at the moment, getting to the site is irrelevant; it seems youtube doesn't want to search on 'cicarelli': http://youtube.com/results?search_query=cicarelli& search=Search [youtube.com]

      uh, i was checking for research purposes.
    • Is that they so easily did this. There had to have been someone, somewhere, or something with a plan already in place to block specific Internet traffic from Brazil. It's not China fer Chrissakes!
    • Re:Work around? (Score:4, Informative)

      by missy_diamond (1047952) on Sunday January 07 2007, @12:10AM (#17494840)
      Well, it doesn't seem to be blocked. I'm in Brazil and I'm seeing videos on YouTube right now.
  • by DragonPup (302885) on Saturday January 06 2007, @10:51PM (#17494270)
    Working link? :p

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Bah, it doesn't even have anything explicit (other than a very blurry image of a couple making out in skimpy clothes).

        And almost all of it seems to have taken place at public places (i.e. beaches, parties etc.)

        Isn't there a law (at least in the US) which states that you can't dispute against something that's been videotaped or photographed in a public place?

        I mean, if you are going to do things out in public and a video of it appeared somewhere, is it necessarily wrong?

        If you're that particular, get a damn
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Is that all?

        So where's the money shot?
      • This one is much better:
        More fun to watch [google.com]
          • by Optic7 (688717) on Sunday January 07 2007, @12:10AM (#17494842)
            Those are mosquitos that transmit Dengue Fever [wikipedia.org], which is a tropical disease. They spoofed it as a PSA against mosquitos. Toward the middle of the clip, once they get in the water, they put up title cards saying "Dengue mosquitos reproduce in the water", "Don't leave any standing water around", etc, etc. Pretty funny. At first I was wondering WTF? But once the title cards came on it all made sense - they run actual PSAs there telling people not to leave standing water in their yards (in plant vases, etc) to control the mosquito population.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Bzzt, link broken, thank you for playing, please try again.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          >I find it strange that the video is considered as a "sex" video.

          You obviously watch too much porn.

          They are having sex. Just because there's no close up of penetration, don't mean it ain't happening. You kids today are spoiled, what with your internets and your bittorrents... back in my day, we used to walk ten miles up the hill backwards in the snow, just to catch a peek at a bra in the Sears catalog, and it would give us stroking material for a week.
  • by Jugalator (259273) on Saturday January 06 2007, @10:55PM (#17494296) Journal
    Try not make love in front of masses of people on a public beach.
  • by srgvie (1047920) on Saturday January 06 2007, @10:55PM (#17494298)
    I'm not sure about this post.Im accessing youtube right now.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I'm from Brazil and it's working ver fine (my IP is 201.92.3.130).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Yes, I'm in Brazil and I can access youtube normally.
        • Yes, I'm in Brazil and I can access youtube normally.

          No problem, no need to worry.
          Please provide me your IP and I'll gladly forward it to the authorities so they can fix that.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward
            Sure! It's 127.0.0.1!
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I'm in Brazil too, it works fine. But I'm making another backup of the video, just in case.
  • by canyon289 (848746) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:07PM (#17494408)
    In international news, The Brazilian goverment has just recieved 10 shares of Google.
  • Publicity stunt? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dangitman (862676) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:18PM (#17494494)

    Brazilian media starlet Daniela Cicarelli

    If she's merely a starlet, isn't it probable that this is all just a publicity stunt to help thrust herself into full-blown stardom?

  • by cadu (876004) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:19PM (#17494496)
    I can't stop reiterating how the brazillian government and laws work in such a way they're always focused
    on proving that law works (specially if it involves a personality or something that could have a world impact, like a sex video of
    a famous brazillian star (that everyone has already viewed anyway)) while the semi-analphabet President keeps getting re-elected,
    while the parliament keeps voting (under winning majority, of course) their own promotions and their own extended vacations, while people are struggling to get jobs or grounded at their homes while criminals lurk freely in the city at anytime....

    "Brasil", *please* change for the good of your people, everytime you guys go investigate the flamed nail of a governor's wife a person dies or gets murdered

    thank you for showing again that our country (even with loads of raw materials, opportunity from external companies, massive workforce) is still not ready for raising the bar. thank you :(
  • by NorbrookC (674063) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:21PM (#17494516) Journal

    Is an apt metaphor for this. My goodness, a well-known (sort of) "celebrity" gets videotaped having sex and somehow the video makes itself public! Shocked, shocked I am, that this would happen! You'd think that with so many of these incidents in the past that they might become just a bit cautious. Really, how hard is it to follow the simple ideas of:

    a) Don't videotape yourself having sex.

    b) If you do, invest in a safe. A very good one.

    c) Don't have sex in public. No, really, people have cellphones now to shoot footage of interesting things like that, besides the ever-popular video cameras.

    d) If you break up with someone, and you've taped yourselves having sex, get the tapes before walking out!

    Because once it's out, it's out. Court orders, forcing various sites to remove it just don't work. All it does is add to the publicity. I'd be willing to bet that within a week (if that) you'll see the video all over the binary groups, P2P networks, bittorrent, and various pr0n sites. Blocking one site is simply an attempt to bail out the Titanic with a bucket - nice try, but it won't work.

  • by Orange Crush (934731) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:27PM (#17494568)

    They can blacklist her name and all the various permutations that crop up, employ measures similar to the copyright enforcement they're still working on by attempting to automatically recognize the particular video, and on and on. People will still find ways to put it right back. It's going to be an endless cat and mouse game. Can anyone else think of a way to realistically keep the video off YouTube without moderating the whole shooting match?

    The real problem is that their are thousands, if not millions of people whose attention is fixated on this video and they'll keep trying to distribute it. The only way this is going to go away is when people lose interest . . . which isn't going to happen any time soon now that there's constant media coverage because she was foolish enough to file suit. Daniela's best bet is to get over herself and take advantage of the fact she's now a world-wide household name. Paris Hilton wasn't nearly as famous until her sex tapes and look at how much she's been raking in ever since. Welcome to celebrity, Daniela--your privacy is now forfeit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Welcome to celebrity, Daniela--your privacy is now forfeit.
      Welcome to the 21st century -- everybody's privacy is now forfeit.
    • Welcome to celebrity, Daniela--your privacy is now forfeit.
      Could have been worse, it could have been flying penises on second life.
  • by T'r'i'g'g'e'r'H'a'p' (1047926) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:33PM (#17494608)
    Here in Brasil we've got the crappiest Tv on the face of earth. For example there is a Mexican show called "Chaves" that is on air for more then a decade. And one of the latest most watched TV shows is Woody Woodpecker. This video is on the net for months and nothing was done. Maybe it is the tv channels trying to ban all the alternatives. And by the way, I can still watch YouTube.
  • by origamy (807009) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:52PM (#17494726) Homepage
    According to the Brazilian media, the local courts have only asked Youtube to remove the video. There is no DNS blacklist or anything like that.

    Read yourself (in Portuguese) at Folha de Sao Paulo [uol.com.br] or, use Google Translator [google.com] to translate it.

    "The version of that all the YouTube would have of being removed of air arrived to be propagated by some Brazilian sites and international agencies in the thursday, but it was contradicted by the Court of Justice. Justice only determined that the YouTube hinders the propagation it video with Daniela Cicarelli."
  • So... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Runefox (905204) on Sunday January 07 2007, @12:19AM (#17494882) Homepage
    Why not just use Google Translate [google.ca] to "translate" Youtube?

    Quite simple, really. Not sure if Youtube's videos will work (which would make it a useless workaround), but translating from (for example) Chinese Simplified to English will usually ensure you get non-altered text (it being a different character set the engine's looking for and all. You could also technically use one of the following IP's if it's just blocked at the domain level (Youtube's linking seems to be all relative):

    208.65.153.242
    208.65.153.245
    208.65.153.251
    208.65.153.253
    208.65.153.241

    And then there's the obligatory mention of Tor [eff.org].

    Yes, I also realize that my first method is cruelly aligned to anglophones.
  • by synthespian (563437) on Sunday January 07 2007, @02:39AM (#17495606)
    You see, the thing is Brazil has an extremely convoluted legal jungle. It inherited this Portuguese culture of a love for all things legally convoluted and impenetrable. When Portugal colonized Brazil, for quite sometime the ruling elite was made of pretty much a bunch of aristocratic good-for-nothing lawyers/slackers that graduated from Coimbra University, in Portugal. The basic characteristic of such people were a basic lack of common sense as well as a despise for work. Instead of working, they made laws. And more laws. I mean, Portugal is notorious for having discovered America and then having ended up owing a huge amount of money to the Brits, as foreign debt, losing all the gold they had amassed, right? From that point on, they were basically a fishing village (until they joined the E.U.)

    In Brazil, there have been over 3,510,804 norms and regulations published in the last 18 years alone. This averages 534 per day or 783 per work day (source,in Portuguese, here [ibpt.com.br]) (If you read Spanish, you read Portugese). Any corporation in Brazil is bound to have a gigantic body of lawyers. The whole system is about to collapse, but there's no sign of a legal reform. There are too many laws, and too many stupid decisions. Until recently, it was possible to maneuver in legal waters to a point that even trivial matters went to the Supreme Court. By trivial, I mean a dog biting the neighbour. Can you even imagine that in the U.S of A.? Also, judges here have too much power, it would seem. Even when they are complete and utter imbecils, as seems to be the case. Were I on a Brazilian blog, BTW, I would not dare say I thought the judge was an imbecil, though.

    Also, there is such a thing in the civil code as "the right to one's own image." This means that you have the right to control the use of your image. However, it would seem that fucking in a public beach, when you are a celebrity of sorts would preclude to right to pledge the right to such right. Am I being clear? I mean, there have been all sorts of pornographic interpretation of individual rights. I recently witnessed a complete douchebag seriously threaten with a lawsuit a list moderator. The guy had been expelled because of bad behaviour, but he went on to take legal action on the ground his "right to expression" was being denied. I bet he's got a 50-50 chance of pulling it off, too. All sorts of weird shit like this in Brazil. Another fun one was a judge ruling spam was ok, because it didn't "waste any material resources" (that was circa 1996, though). Oh, yeah, and the Brazilian Constitution does not grant you the right to express yourslef anonymously. Huh.

    There have been cases, for instance, of cartoonists being sued because of portraying politicians in what was judged to be "excessive" ridicule. Now, either that is the job of a cartoonist that specializes in political satire or I just really should be just as well living in Iran, Cuba or China. All this means is that Brazil, sadly, has little garantees of real freedom of expression. Just about every newspaper has to waste a huge amount of money and time in courts. I wouldn't say it would be wise to have a blog and express one's opinion as openly as people do in the United States, in Brazil. Chances are, they'll sue your pants off. Unless you are working in a big media outlet, you're dead meat. In a more shameful example, when NYT reporter Larry Rother suggested in an article that Brazil's president had a penchant for heavy drinking, the president and his acolytes considered actually banning Mr. Rother form the country. They went bananas.

    We will live yet to see the day when Google gets blocked in Brazil, because they refused to remove a link to press material judged "offensive" to corrupt politicos. You'll see... There'll come a time I'll probably ask for political exile somewhere. When they ask me why, I'll answer: "Because living in Brazil fucks too much with my head and I'll become a mental case, sooner or later."
    • Re:Funny (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jason Straight (58248) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:00PM (#17494340) Homepage
      Why not? Look at the example we set when we allow charges to be pressed in NY against Russian companies, RIAA vs AllofMP3.
    • Re:Funny (Score:5, Informative)

      by 42Penguins (861511) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:02PM (#17494370)

      I find it damn funny that a foreign country seems to think that it has power over a US company.
      I find it damn funny that a US company seems to think it has power over a foreign country.Examples: Take your pick from EA, Microsoft, **AA, and any of the other US entities that have tried suing The Pirate Bay.
      • Oh, give it a rest. If The Pirate Bay (or any company) does business with Americans in America, then they may be prosecuted in America for any laws they break. They may also be prosecuted in Russia for any Russian laws they break. It's not as if America or any other country tried to enforce their own laws in foreign courts.
        • Re:Funny (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sumdumass (711423) on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:40PM (#17494640) Journal
          Considering Google has offices in brazil, I doubt the requests were even imposed across country boundries. The demand was probbly placed on the brazilian offices and let go at that. In that case, google (youtube) would be just as bound anywere it had offices because the brazil entity would/could be screwed.
    • Agreed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 06 2007, @11:05PM (#17494388)
      People are so weird. While I am aware of the social and economic problems that sexual promiscuity can cause (disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc.), the fact remains that most of the living creatures on the planet have sex, including most humans. We are built for it and driven to it. It's just a simple fact of life. I really honestly don't understand why we think it is so horrible to capture it on film. If you don't like watching, then don't watch.

      If the video was filmed without her (and his) consent, then I will say too bad. If you are in public, people can see you. If you don't want to be filmed, get a room.

    • If you look at all the crap that the french and other countries have done, is not so much to really block them, but to fine them. They are all looking to hit the deep pockets of Google.
        All in all, I seriously doubt that even one judge thinks that Google has done wrong on any of these cases.