Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Censorship Businesses Google Government The Courts News

YouTube Blocked in Brazil 387

Posted by Zonk
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

YouTube Blocked in Brazil

Comments Filter:
  • 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)

      by The MAZZTer (911996)

      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.

      • by AndroidCat (229562) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @11:44PM (#17494660) Homepage
        After all, the Intarnet was designed to route pr0n around a nuclear war--it has special tubes for that!
        • by Osty (16825) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @12:26AM (#17494928)

          After all, the Intarnet was designed to route pr0n around a nuclear war--it has special tubes for that!

          Fallopian tubes? [wikipedia.org]

          • by kennygraham (894697) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @02:13AM (#17495444)

            After all, the Intarnet was designed to route pr0n around a nuclear war--it has special tubes for that!

            Fallopian tubes? [wikipedia.org]

            only people on slashdot need a wikipedia link to know what fallopian tubes are. after all, they're somewhat related to sex [wikipedia.org].
            • Re:Work around? (Score:4, Informative)

              by hclyff (925743) on Sunday January 07, 2007 @05:17AM (#17496302)
              only people on slashdot need a wikipedia link to know what fallopian tubes are
              Them as well as 90% percent of men.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by turgid (580780)

                I pity those without a Scottish education. We learned about such things in our final year of primary school (age 11). And what's more, our elderly, sour-faced, authoritarian, right-wing puritanical female teacher managed not to rant too much about it being "not nice."

                What is it with Western Protestant culture? Natural bodily functions are considered "bad."

    • 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)

        by Xymor (943922)
        I just did a quick survey with my friends, and all users from Virtua, Velox and Speedy, that is, most of the ISPs in Brazil are not blocking youtube.
        I recently discovered that BrTurbo blocks, besides youtube now, nasa.gov and perform traffic shaping. They should have used the court decision as an excuse to stop users from using one of the biggest bandwidth consuming sites.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by odasnac (570543)
      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.
    • by gerf (532474)
      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)

        by metlin (258108) *
        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?
      • by liquidpele (663430) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @11:36PM (#17494624) Journal
        This one is much better:
        More fun to watch [google.com]
        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by kalpaha (667921)
          I thought whoever filmed the first video was a creepy stalker. Well, the new video [google.com] takes creepiness to a whole new level. What are those things in the movie anyway?
          • 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:2, Funny)

            by kalpaha (667921)
            Ok, based on some comments to my post, I was too quick to judge. The video is an educational video! Boy, don't I feel silly now. Just goes to show, never judge a book by it's cover.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Buran (150348)
        Bzzt, link broken, thank you for playing, please try again.
    • by bmo (77928)
      "Working link? :p"

      Here's the video in question...I think.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-550349877 3966581583&q=Cicarelli [google.com]

      --
      BMO
      • by bmo (77928)
        Oh crap, after I posted that I saw that the PSA video was posted here dozens of times. Mod me down.

        Do not leave water standing about.

        TYVM.

        --
        BMO
  • 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)

      by michelcultivo (524114)
      I'm from Brazil and it's working ver fine (my IP is 201.92.3.130).
  • It is not blocked! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jorlando (145683)
    It is a problem with people accessing through Brasil Telecom's network (one of the brazilian telcos). Since their DNS aren't recursive I couldn't check if this a DNS problem or a network problem.
  • by canyon289 (848746) on Saturday January 06, 2007 @11:07PM (#17494408)
    In international news, The Brazilian goverment has just recieved 10 shares of Google.
  • Intranet Brazil (Score:2, Insightful)

    by michelcultivo (524114)
    And the project "Intranet Brazil" starts.
  • I don't think I've seen DNS mentioned on TFA. Did a quick search and got nothing.
    The article says that Youtube took down the video...
  • 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 gardyloo (512791)
      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?

            I think it's the guy who was doing the thrusting into the starlet. And why not?!?
  • by cadu (876004) <cadu DOT coelho AT gmail DOT com> 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 :(
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by keeboo (724305)
      I think the real problem is that the court decided that it wasn't right to display that video, which was recorded in a public place.
      I mean, c'mon, it's not like someone broke into her house to record some private sex.

      The following actions were technically correct, but were made over a bad decision.
  • 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 repvik (96666)
      Blocking one site is simply an attempt to bail out the Titanic with a bucket - nice try, but it won't work.

      I'd say it's more like trying to get the water out of titanic by blowing holes in the bottom of the hull. The harder you try, the harder it gets.
    • d) If you break up with someone, and you've taped yourselves having sex, get the tapes before walking out!

      Um I assume there are two+ people in a relationship!

      Slashdot Relationshiponomics.
  • 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)

      by servognome (738846)
      Welcome to celebrity, Daniela--your privacy is now forfeit.
      Welcome to the 21st century -- everybody's privacy is now forfeit.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by bky1701 (979071)
      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 Perseid (660451)
      I dunno. I think I'd take Woody Woodpecker over most of what is broadcast here on American TV.
  • From the article: wildly popular video showing Cicarelli and Brazilian banker Renato Malzoni making out along a beach near the Spanish city of Cadiz.

    Uh, if you look at the video [google.com] (thanks to fellow slashdotters), they do a lot more than "make out".

    Talk about PC bullshit...the video clearly shows them having sex in the water. Or is the AP full of very, very naive reporters? Or do Brazilians have a very loose definition of the term "make out"? :-)

  • 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."
  • Pull the video from your cache
    Burn it to DVD and copy x times
    Pass out free copies of the video on the street and offer them for free in every public place you possibly can.

    If you don't have access to dvds or don't want to pay for them, them simply print up fliers with a URL where the video can be downloaded and they can burn it and pass it out themselves.
  • the fame of an event/ movie/ book/ video clip/ etc. is magnified by orders of magnitude if a powerful person/ government/ organization/ religious figurehead tries to censor it

    i swear, it must be a golden rule of the universe, it never fails

    all the brazilian government did was ensure even people who haven't the foggiest what the video is all about will now look at it

    such as random slashdot readers like me

    i'm reminded of rudy giuliani and an obscure artist/ artwork that... isn't so obscure anymore precisely b [wikipedia.org]
  • 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.
  • its not blocked (Score:2, Informative)

    by aod7br (573614)
    YouTube Its not blocked (just checked again) and this whole thread is a waste of time.
    Cicarelli lawyers said bullshit as it would block google in Brazil, of course court order dimissed it and just asked google to comply.
  • Pfft Youtube ...pornotube is where it's at!
  • If I told about this to my mom, she would say "great, the web is all porn!". To the casual observer, it may seem a good move. But in the end it is an attack on the very fabric of the revolutioneary aspect of the web: full user contribution and sharing.

    There are more than enough people with power out there that will exploit it if it becomes commonplace to shut down wensites due to whaterver upsets someone. The real battle of this generation may be between the people that benefit from a lack of transparency,
  • What's Google being sued for?

    It's kind of a cute video. The couple makes out around their friends, who seem to be completely indifferent to it, like they've seen this before. They take pictures of each other. The girl looks at the camera a few times; she knows she's being recorded and is cool with it. Then they go off and have sex in the surf, and again, there's a glance towards the camera now and then. Good sex scene. No big deal.

    I'm surprised there's any objection from Brazil about this. I'd e

    1. The concept of "publishing" on the Internet is restricted, regulated and can only be done by duely authorized people. The result is the 1955 version of the New York Times.
    2. People give up and realize there is nothing that is special, private or reserved any longer.

    Today, I can record anything - anything at all - and post it on the Internet. If it is salacious or titilating, it will be redistributed. It seems to be the common belief if most posters that it is then impossible to take down or suppress.

    There

  • As mentioned, ferchrissakes, its just a model having sex on the beach, who would want to see that anyway?

    Secondly, if the gov't of Brasil wants it taken down... uh, okay, remove it from all Brasilian based servers. If they still aren't happy, redirect all page view requests to a Brasilian gov't website.

    Anyone out there with bandwidth? Host a copy yourself. The Brasilian gov't can't require all countries, all websites etc. to remove the video... The Internet cannot be regulated by any single government.

    BTW,
  • All I can say to the idiots involved, who think they can quash something that's on the 'Net, is: HAHA! You fail Internet-101. Trying to strike it down will make it more powerful than you can possibly imagine. You can be a celebrity or you can have privacy - Pick one and STFU.

    (In related news, if you wish to avoid being taped having sex, not doing it in public helps)
  • 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."
    • 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 law

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean. -- Albert Einstein

Working...