Brazil Wants Another Google Site -- YouTube -- Shut Down
from the good-luck-with-that dept
A few months ago, the Brazilian government got into a legal spat with Google after its Orkut social-networking site was being used for illegal activity. Google complied with some of the Brazilian demands, including shutting down parts of Orkut, but the government wasn't happy, and started harrassing Google's Brazilian office, which was just responsible for ad sales and had nothing to do with running Orkut. Now, a Brazilian judge has ordered that YouTube, another Google property, be shut down until it removes a celebrity sex video from its site. The video in question features a Brazilian model and her boyfriend having sex on a beach; it's been removed from YouTube several times, but users have uploaded it again and again. But don't expect your favorite source of exploding Mentos videos to disappear: just like with Orkut, the Brazilian court's going to have a hard time enforcing this order, since YouTube is based in the US, and generally subject to its laws and courts (except for local products in some cases).Once again, the question of who has legal jurisdiction over the internet and sites on it comes into question. US courts tend to agree that online companies are bound by the laws of the country in which they're based, while there are continual efforts by groups like record companies and even some governments to assert that if an internet site can be reached from a particular place, it's subject to its laws and the jurisdiction of its courts. This leads to a problem of jurisdiction shopping, where people file lawsuits in unrelated countries to take advantage of their legal environments. Jurisdiction shopping, of course, isn't a new phenomenon, but the internet makes it a little easier. This is a sticky subject: the idea that anybody can be sued anywhere in the world for something the post online isn't a particularly appealing one, but many people don't have a problem with local laws being used to chase after criminals abroad when it comes to things like child pornography. So where is the line drawn, and who gets to determine it? While international treaties govern all sorts of things, international court systems have often been undermined by these very types of questions about jurisidiction.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Or just block it from their end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Blocking it from their end would be too easy.
Basically they're looking for a reason to bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And, sometimes they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
obvious boundaries
Great. So as AllofMP3.com asserted, the RIAA can shove their lawsuit up their ass.
Of course companies are bound by the laws of their country, that is the essence of soverignty and the nation state. To think otherwise is to ask for war. And it wouldn't be the first time wars have started over trade.
In this case the Brazillians can just suck it up, or go to New York and file a case in the country of juristiction. Likewise the USA can keep its fat nose out of Russian affairs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: obvious boundaries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For crying out loud!
PRIORITIES, PEOPLE!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I never really feel sorry for the government's when they don't get their way. Actually, that's a good thing.
Government in general is all about a select few and their hunger for power. Not really about anything else. Just a bunch of rich people who desire more power.
Things that 'the common' people control, like the internet is a real thorn in their side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Internet Freedom
Better to let it stay the way it is, with everything open and countries that censor the net censoring the net.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Internet Freedom
"Anyways we need an international body of people that represent a large majority of countries to decide these types of things."
No we don't. The US is handling it just fine. If you don't like it, don't use it. Go build your own internet.
"These issues are not going to go away and the current way of handling them is very very flawed."
What "issues?" Freedom of expression? Sovereignty of nations? How the hell does Brazil have any right in telling *any* web site not hosted in Brazil that they should be shut down? YOUTUBE IS NOT AT FAULT. THE RESPONSIBILITY IS WITH THE PEOPLE WHO UPLOAD THE VIDEOS TO YOUTUBE. Jesus-H-Fucking-Christ, why is this so hard to understand?
"Some sort of system needs to be setup that can enforce and regulate net "laws"."
No, it doesn't. That's the last thing needed on the internet. The internet is what it is today expressly because there was no "system" to "enforce and regulate" anything. What you are suggesting is Censorship and Oversight like they have in China.
"It would be difficult and complicated but would save a lot of people a lot of time and money."
Try impossible and would cost jillions of dollars and would be a complete waste of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it has been removed again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, there cannot. 'common' sense is not common and even if it were it could not be defined to the satisfaction of people who wish to project their 'sense' on others. Similarly, 'Justice' is very much in the eye of the beholder. It's not Google's (or any other private persone or company) responsibility to enforce laws and they certainly cannot be expected to abide by the vast array of conflicting, contradictory and just plain crazy laws of all the nations on the planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did anyone RTFA
For days it was the most viewed video in Brazil."
That's hilarious! A celebrity is causing this rumpus. And we all know why they do it - I mean why celebrities with egos the size of galaxys deliberately expose themselves to the camera and then cry foul. It's all about the publicity.
Yeah wink about that Ronaldo!
I'm curious, - who is the missing link? Who is putting the pressure on the Brazillian government as part of a celebrity PR exposure exercise? Some money has changed hands here for sure.
Here's two thoughts...
1) Should they be prosecuted for exhibitionism/exposure (was it a public beach)
2) How do those that assert what you do in public is public (not private) when there are cameras about square that with their position on ubiquitous surveillance?
I think they shagging and very much HOPING there was a camera on them. Attention whores :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: obvious boundaries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: obvious boundaries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my internet
Yeah?! I will. With Blackjack. And Hookers. In fact, forget the internet...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube and Brazil
Why should Brazilians, the ones who made Cicarelli famous, be penalized? Why should anyone be penalized?
Please clarify your headline. Brazil doens't want to shut YT. Ms. Cicarelli's lawyer spread a rumor based on a lawsuit on her and her boyfriend's behalf. Oh, he's not a banker; he works for Merryl Lynch. And she is ex-Mrs.Ronaldo fenômeno, a model and VJ for EmpTv.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
youtube
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
>>"The internet is what it is today expressly because there was no "system" to "enforce and regulate" anything. What you are suggesting is Censorship and Oversight like they have in China. "
Time to send those horses and lottery balls down the internet 'pipes' and clear all this rubbish out (inc. the illegal to access in the US gambling sites).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow brazil is a bitch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
youtubeluvs me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf
but dis is crosing the line!!!(PS:i stil love brazillina girls big bobs am graet ass)bot dont shot down you tube i spend 80% of my time on the internet ther pls dot shut it down or am going to comlany to the prezident of brazil
even if i most learn how to speak brazilian!!!f**k the prezident save youtube!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]