Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Google The Internet The Media Your Rights Online

Turkey Bans Google's Blogger Over Soccer Piracy 56

Posted by timothy
from the futbol-must-prevail dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A local court has banned Google's Blogger service in Turkey in response to a complaint by satellite TV firm Digiturk that streaming media feeds from local soccer games were appearing on multiple Blogger profiles. Unsurprisingly, Google criticized the move, given that everyone is suffering over a few people's illegal actions. Copyright holders should target the individuals that are distributing the infringing content via an established complaints procedure rather than having the parent site banned. An estimated 600,000 Turks use the service to blog about anything from daily ramblings, to hobbies, to keeping their readers updated with the news."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Turkey Bans Google's Blogger Over Soccer Piracy

Comments Filter:
  • So, does anybody know:

    Is the Turkish government merely twitchy about precious, precious "IP", or is this somewhat more like China, where external web services get blocked more or less at random in no small part because the government wishes to encourage use of some local competitor?

    If the former, this seems like it could be counterproductive: beyond any considerations of "justice" or "proportionality", the (cynical, pragmatic) justification for targeted enforcement is that it keeps average-joe-on-the-
    • by Anonymous Coward

      More than likely this is somebody just using a host of Google Blogger accounts and despairing of chasing them down (and perhaps unable to get Google to provide the real identifying information), the Turkish court decided to just say no to Google because that would be the only way to get them to listen.

      The one thing Google never seems to recognize is that evil can be in the eye of the beholder.

    • Re:Interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MoonBuggy (611105) on Sunday March 06, 2011 @04:18PM (#35400032) Journal

      I don't know about their IP laws, but Turkey does have a somewhat strained relationship with political speech - it's theoretically well protected, and broadly speaking, dissenting opinions are published more or less freely, but it's not especially unusual for those espousing the opinions to end up in court over it.

      It's actually a very good 'slippery slope' example for those of us in the west to point out - under the veil of copyright protection, speech is severely curtailed, and this in a country which can only just get away with it. This isn't something people can write off as "It won't happen here" like the gross abuses in Saudi Arabia or China, this is a very real threat to free speech even in countries where it's more strongly protected.

      • by camcorder (759720)
        That's nothing about the free speech or something. It's purely about copyright infringement, and Google doesn't do its work to block such an abusive content.

        US is much more strict in that sense.
        OTOH, just because it's "blog" it doesn't mean it's about a page people share their opinions, vast majority of those blocks include the pirated content or links to them even worse with advertisement.
        • Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MoonBuggy (611105) on Sunday March 06, 2011 @04:59PM (#35400364) Journal

          You seem to have missed the point - they didn't just block the alleged infringing content, the blocked the entire Google Blogger service; that's 600,000 people's speech blocked from view by the government because a few broke the law. I'd say that's very much a free speech issue, and your post is an excellent example of how their attempts to imply it's a simple copyright case are working.

          • by camcorder (759720)
            Do you have any idea how hard is to block part of a web site from a distributed server? Should they check the whole data which people downloading and filter only the certain 'html' code? Isn't it more harmful for free speech? I don't want anyone to monitor data I'm downloading from any server. It's duty of Google to block those content, but they didn't according to the owner of complaint, since they tried to convince Google first to remove that content. I guess Google was happy with that content due to the
            • by MoonBuggy (611105)

              Do you have any idea how hard is to block part of a web site from a distributed server? Should they check the whole data which people downloading and filter only the certain 'html' code? Isn't it more harmful for free speech? I don't want anyone to monitor data I'm downloading from any server.

              I really don't think they should be blocking any content at all, and any method they do try to use is almost guaranteed to be breakable - the only real question is how hard it is to break. That said, I'm sure blocking the URL of the relevant blog or blogs at the DNS level would be about the same difficulty, and effectiveness, as blocking the whole of Blogger.

              It's duty of Google to block those content, but they didn't according to the owner of complaint, since they tried to convince Google first to remove that content.

              No, it isn't. If companies start yanking content based on the laws of countries other than those where their servers are located, whose laws should the

              • by camcorder (759720)

                I really don't think they should be blocking any content at all, and any method they do try to use is almost guaranteed to be breakable - the only real question is how hard it is to break. That said, I'm sure blocking the URL of the relevant blog or blogs at the DNS level would be about the same difficulty, and effectiveness, as blocking the whole of Blogger.

                Blocking URL's at DNS level is pretty hard. DNS blocking is the easiest (and the least efficient) way to block content. Different URLs of the same site would resolve to same IP so you can't block a certain URL at DNS level easily (you still need prior monitoring if you want to do that.). Besides, why should anyone care a product of a company that doesn't do that themselves?

                No, it isn't. If companies start yanking content based on the laws of countries other than those where their servers are located, whose laws should they draw the line at? Sweden? Turkey? Saudi Arabia?

                If you can manage to distinguish users based on their geographical location for your income generating advertisement network, for sure y

            • by MoonBuggy (611105)

              Thinking further, a few more relevant points come to mind: by your own argument, people can replicate the same content on other servers - why won't the infringing content come back just as easily as the rest? It wasn't even Blogger hosting the files, they were just linked to, so making those few links available again is not exactly difficult - certainly much easier than making hundreds of thousands of blogs (and all the associated community and commenting) available elsewhere.

              Even taking as fact the obvious

              • by camcorder (759720)
                Google could easily block the content, and give out the IPs of the users of their page, so copyright owners would fight with those infringing their copyrights. Once Google back those, that means they are protecting those against laws (for more ad revenue). Even if it's for political reasons, I don't think corporations have any right to impose their own morals to nations. This is my country, these laws were written by those I elected, and I trust them much more than any foreign organization running for-profi
            • by Anonymous Coward

              If they want to block the content, they should block the server streaming the live games. No infringing content was being hosted by the blogger service. Furthermore, there IS a complaints process to ban the violaters, which was not followed. Finally, this isn't about google. It could have been any other blogging service, or even one of those free web hosts.

              This law turkey has, like many laws being made these days, doesn't reflect technical realities. If there was a drug dealer living in an apartment, you sh

          • by nusuth (520833)

            The process in Turkey works like this: Someone goes to court claiming a web site at a certain URL and/or IP is doing something forbidden (copyright infringements are just one example.) The court checks whether the claim is true and if it is, whether the service provider removes it once notified. If the claim is true and the service provider is unwilling to remove the offending content the URL name and/or IP block is forbidden. While the courts can decide whether or not ban a site, they don't have options to

  • There. I said it. The USA DMCA is not entirely evil.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      There. I said it. The USA DMCA is not entirely evil.

      And Stalin made the trains run on time. So what? Simply because something has a redeeming quality or two doesn't grant it a reprieve.

    • For better or worse, Blogger is a US company. Had they sent it a DMCA notice, it would have been upheld. Of course, it's always easier to censor stuff when you have something like COICA already in place!
  • by Immostlyharmless (1311531) on Sunday March 06, 2011 @04:15PM (#35400012)
    Local Courts, apparently. Or better yet, how about just banning local dumbshit judges that are still stuck in 1947 or whatever the hell yesteryear they graduated from law school in?
    • by camcorder (759720)
      I don't want my tax money to be spent on some juridical inspection to find abusive content, and prepare infrastructure to block exactly that. That's the *duty* of provider, and in this case provider is Google. I don't know if Google would be happy if someone rip their for-profit online applications and sell them, we've already seen how offensive they were when their authentication system source code was leaked. Hypocritically if it's IP of someone else they just *don't care* with freedom lies. That's far f
    • by westlake (615356)

      Local Courts, apparently. Or better yet, how about just banning local dumbshit judges that are still stuck in 1947 or whatever the hell yesteryear they graduated from law school in?

      The broadcast rights to Spor Toto Super League matches are worth $321 million dollars. Blogger becomes latest victim of Turkish Internet bans [hurriyetdailynews.com]

      This in a country with a population of 74.8 million - -- and it may help to explain why a Turkish court sends an early morning wake-up call to Google.

      The Turkish system is very different from the U.S.

      There are no juries, only judges and panels of judges.

      There is no intermediate appelate system.

      Which means that the decisions of your "dumbshit" local judge carry

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Otherwise your local employees may find themselves detained by police and questioned. Vigorously [amnesty.org].

  • This all sounds fishy. Blogger has no mechanism to host streaming media. It integrates well with youtube and picasa, but neither of those could show you live games, both respond to takedown notices, and neither was targeted by this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by tyler78 (2010108)
      They're not streaming through blogger. They just embed the code from justin.tv. But they're closing blogger anyway out of stupidity.
  • Our local courts and judges are very ignorant about cumputer and internet releated stuff and our laws are very very flexible about cencorship. You can close about any site with those. Bad thing is, all of those streaming blogs are getting it from justin.tv and embed it to their blogs. And they're closing blogger, not justin.tv. They are that stupid. It doesn't matter though. Everybody knows how to change their dns settings, or to use proxy. We memorized it when youtube closed for 3 years.
  • It be haaard to be playin' ye olde soccerrrrrrr on account o' me wooden leg an' eyepatch an' the goalie be keepin' bustin' the ball wi' 'is hook me hearties!

  • Please, do not take this as personal freedoms, censorship etc problem.

    This is the how Turkish law system works...

    Some one use internet for piracy.

    Piracy victim goes court and court assigns an expert. Expert suggest something, court agrees and bans the sites.

    And Turkish telecom uses own dns based banning system...

    Then people uses Google dns servers to access those banned hosts.

    It was very frustrating thing for a western mind...

    for us, it just another day to find the another way to jump other side of the fenc

  • As you remember from the slashdot articles of the time, there is an internet censorship board which is directly tied to the prime minister, and which is also able to censor websites without any court order, if they are deemed 'dangerous or harmful' for the culture or 'youth'. the ruling party's own president's office had detected that 6,000 websites or so were censored totally without court order, despite the claims of the censorship board to not have censored anything without a court order.

    and then ther
  • given that everyone is suffering over a few people's illegal actions

    Sounds more like everyone is suffering over a local court's clumsy trampling of free speech in order to protect the profits of some broadcast monopoly-holders.

  • This would be the same Turkey whose president is so fucking stupid that he tweets about the joys of watching a pirated movie in the comfort of his own home [torrentfreak.com]?

    • by niw3 (1029008)
      The Ministry of Culture said that they requested a preview disc on behalf of the president, and the company accepted it. You are so fucking stupid to believe everything you read.
  • because i'm the founder of www.LiveChatConcepts.com which features 14 websites around live sporting events such as http://www.livebaseballchat.com/ [livebaseballchat.com] http://www.livefootballchat.com/ [livefootballchat.com] http://www.livehockeychat.com/ [livehockeychat.com] http://www.livebasketballchat.com/ [livebasketballchat.com] etc etc - i see a lot of these sites streaming media (we dont stream any media, just provide chats that start and close with each event) I can understand why IP owners are trying to get them shut down as they pay a lot for the rights to stream football/basketb

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984

Working...