Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Turkey Bans Google's Blogger Over Soccer Piracy

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the futbol-must-prevail dept.

Censorship 56

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Interesting... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35399964)

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-street on your side, rather than making him side with whatever malefactors you are cracking down on. Upsetting 600,000 people(and encouraging them to learn about proxies and such) is a questionable move.

If the latter, the plot gets a bit thicker...

Re:Interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35400002)

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... (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400032)

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.

Re:Interesting... (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400312)

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... (3, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400364)

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.

Re:Interesting... (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400538)

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 advertisement revenue they are getting from those pages. People can use more legitimate servers (read: other blog sites) to share their ideas. Google Blogger product is not the only place to write blogs.

Re:Interesting... (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400748)

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 they draw the line at? Sweden? Turkey? Saudi Arabia?

People can use more legitimate servers (read: other blog sites) to share their ideas. Google Blogger product is not the only place to write blogs.

A fair point, but where does that leave Turks who want to access information that only exists on Blogger? What about the following that users had built up? How are they to tell their readers where to find the new blog? Most importantly, how are they to be sure that the same won't keep happening, now the precedent is set?

Re:Interesting... (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35401058)

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 you can do the same for content you serve for that geographical location. That *might* be an excuse for smaller sites, but for Google it's not an issue, and they just don't do this not because they can't, just because they are not happy about it since otherwise their hits on those products will diminish. Well how many visit YouTube for just non-copyrighted work? Vast majority of users are those who want to reach copyrighted materials easily for *free*. So they are not willing to block those content, and I don't think Blogger is an exception.

Most importantly, how are they to be sure that the same won't keep happening, now the precedent is set?

If you value your opinions, then you should be more careful about your choice of provider. On a flip side, how are they to be sure that same kind of infringement won't affect themselves in future, if they support this kind of behavior?

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35403232)

If someone stole car will policy arrest all peoples from that quarter?
Or if someone made car acident will policy take all cars?
Than way if someone brok copyright all peoples are involvd? Why not found who made that "crime" and take him to court.

Re:Interesting... (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400892)

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 obviously spurious argument that blocking Blogger would be 100% effective in preventing this copyright infringement from occurring, you've just weighed the value of a certain amount of potential profit lost by a large media company against the rights of hundreds of thousands of people to have years worth of their writing remain public. Even in this hypothetical, 'best case' argument for your side, I wouldn't hesitate to put the speech of the majority ahead of the profit of the minority.

Re:Interesting... (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35401132)

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-profit. If they are not happy with it, they can just stop serving content for Turkey. However they choose to be hypocrite and while not obeying laws of the country, they want money from same nation. It's simple: if you suck money out of my country, you should obey its rules.

Even rss.slashdot.org is not accessible in Turkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35401118)

Due to CNAME record (which pointing to ghs.l.google.com), rss.slashdot.org is unaccessible in Turkey. I can't even read slashdot rss feed in this damn country. This is how government work on www in Turkey.

Is this what you want?

I am not saying filtering content is good, censorship is not acceptable in any case.

Re:Even rss.slashdot.org is not accessible in Turk (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35401174)

I'm against non-sense censorship as well. But I wish in this kind of situation, *all* Google products to be blocked (including Google Search Engine), if Google does not change its arrogant behavior. This is not censorship in a known sense. Once they would see that they will lose such a market and other sites would stop using Google for their services, they would do their auto-control more efficient. I don't understand, how someone do accept idea of a company to have its own 'laws' in your own country just because of some convenience they get from said company? I can't vote for Google BoDs since I'm not a shareholder, but I can vote for my representatives. Why should I give control to them? They are just a company, and for almost all of their products, there are alternatives. (I'm happy to get inferior quality for the sake of my freedom).

Re:Even rss.slashdot.org is not accessible in Turk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35403480)

go to microsoft if you think they are better

Re:Even rss.slashdot.org is not accessible in Turk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35403502)

and you please go to another site, if you think you know how to read.

Re:Interesting... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35402332)

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 shouldn't hold the landlord accountable, and you definitely shouldn't evict everyone in the building because of the acts of one of the tennants. If a friend commits a crime, I am only responsible if I was an accomplice in some way, not merely for knowing the person.

Heck, I bet the people in court went to the website to verify the claims. They ought to be liable to now, no?

Re:Interesting... (1)

nusuth (520833) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403896)

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 specify how the ban will be limited to only offenders. The law is so flawed that a single person can ban all internet sites that allow users to upload content or make comments, or sites that share root name or IP block with such a site with little effort. You don't even need anonymity or breaking laws in process of doing so; free speech is less restricted in RL that on internet in Turkey.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Seumas (6865) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400148)

More interestingly, does anybody know of a blogger blog on blogger that is actually useful? Seems to me like banning every blogger "site" nation-wide is kind of like Google re-jiggering the algorithm they use to reduce exposure for link farms and content farms. Win-win.

Isn't this the typical Islamic style? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35400356)

Egypt, Libya and now Turkey.

Either kill switch the Net or ban this or ban that.

Re:Isn't this the typical Islamic style? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35401598)

that doesn't have to do with islam. Only judges are idiot

Re:Isn't this the typical Islamic style? (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35402292)

Australia is working on a filter to block "Unwanted Content" (Yes, that's what our government calls it) and the United States is looking at having the ability to kill the internet should it threaten the ruling government.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35401098)

They are simply following the "model democracy" and their shutdown of 84,000 sites and calling them all child porn lovers. At least Turkey didn't replace each of the blogs with a nice graphic showing how the blog was seized due to child porn.

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/16/2239245/US-Govt-Mistakenly-Shuts-Down-84000-Sites

neither... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35402172)

The Turkish Government takes the law very seriously, and I believe this particular case is a consequence of applying a law that was intended for a smaller website (or a newspaper) to something as large as Google.

The earlier YouTube ban, on the other hand, was perceived by some part of the populace as "teaching Google a lesson" for allowing content offensive to Turkish culture.

I believe this is a _very_ good example of what happens when you allow any government the ability to block anything on the Internet. Politicians don't necessarily understand technology.

Re:Interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35403542)

All this fuss and nonsense over 22 faggots chasing a sack of stale wind around a patch of muddy grass
one of these days the world will grow up and put FAGGOTBALL where it belongs
at the bottom in a dark and unloved corner somewhere

22 life forms in indeterminate gender chasing themselfs saft over a bag'O'wind great really really intelligent

   

A consequence of the lack of a DMCA safe harbor. (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400000)

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

Re:A consequence of the lack of a DMCA safe harbor (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35400154)

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.

Re:A consequence of the lack of a DMCA safe harbor (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400354)

Re:A consequence of the lack of a DMCA safe harbor (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400376)

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!

Need To Start Banning (2)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 3 years ago | (#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?

Re:Need To Start Banning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35400132)

Well this is Turkey we're talking about... fuckers use their hand to wipe their asshole.

Re:Need To Start Banning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35400244)

Well this is Turkey we're talking about... fuckers use their hand to wipe their asshole.

i guess you are mixing it up with the town you born and grown

Re:Need To Start Banning (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400282)

But, he was born in Ankara. And, shit, it's only the left hand.

Who uses their left hand, anyway?

Re:Need To Start Banning (1)

stonedcat (80201) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400324)

Left handed people?

Re:Need To Start Banning (1)

camcorder (759720) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400448)

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 from being 'not evil'.

I wish they could block all products of the said company, so they won't be able to earn a dime from us in case they don't change their harmful behavior. For sure Internet won't be easier to use without their products, but that would be just for a while, someone would willingly fill their void eventually. They know that. So I'm pretty sure if such a decision made, they would suddenly start to respect laws of nations that they don't even give any tax from their profit.

However average people can't see the big picture, and they think Google products are "free" services for humanity and they should be allowed to do whatever they want on their own way, otherwise it's censorship.

Re:Need To Start Banning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35401314)

I wish they could block all products of the said company, so they won't be able to earn a dime from us in case they don't change their harmful behavior. For sure Internet won't be easier to use without their products, but that would be just for a while, someone would willingly fill their void eventually. They know that. So I'm pretty sure if such a decision made, they would suddenly start to respect laws of nations that they don't even give any tax from their profit.

I think we see a clue about the real reason Turkey blocked Blogger in camcorder's posts - knee-jerk anti-Americanism, or at least, anti-The Very Large American Corporationism. Some unimportant judge in some put-upon country with big esteem issues has decided to show Google what-for. Ridiculous, and will only hurt Turks.

Re:Need To Start Banning (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35401116)

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 very real weight.

Your judge will have four years of law school under his belt, two years of judicial internship and will have been no older than 35 if he held a masters or doctorate degree when he passed his entrance exam.

No older than 30 if he entered the system straight out of law school.

Allow me to suggest that playing the age card is not the brightest idea you ever had.

The Three Most Important Features of Turkey's Legal System That Others Should Know [ialsnet.org]

Re:Need To Start Banning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35401218)

Yes this is the main point here. As unfortunate as it is, old media does use all its arsenal to protect their interests. This specific case, is not about freedom of speech, but of course we cannot generalize..

Re:Need To Start Banning (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35401892)

As unfortunate as it is, old media does use all its arsenal to protect their interests.

"New media" is not a free ticket to every game.

Re:Need To Start Banning (1)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35402110)

You're absolutely correct, in retrospect I should have said judges who see no outlook beyond whats in the case in front of them, with a narrow world view who don't understand that with new technology, their actions and decisions can have a much far greater reach than they realize. Better?

Just let it go, Google (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35400098)

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

But blogger cannot host streaming media (1)

batkiwi (137781) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400210)

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:But blogger cannot host streaming media (3, Informative)

tyler78 (2010108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400250)

They're not streaming through blogger. They just embed the code from justin.tv. But they're closing blogger anyway out of stupidity.

Ignorant Local Courts (2)

tyler78 (2010108) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400216)

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.

Say what you want about the Turkish people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35400298)

I still looove their taffy!

Yarrrr (0)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400490)

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!

Good. Now can we please... (-1, Flamebait)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400730)

... ban football everywhere else? On the radio, too, that would be great. Thanks.

Just about every news programme and half of everything else has had some reference to two football managers having a squabble over what is essentially a children's game with a bit of a subtext of religious war. It would be great if we could get them all to shut up about it.

Our kind of Law enforcement (1)

Delifisek (190943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400772)

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 fence...

There is a lot of censorship in turkey. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35400916)

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 there is the court order invoked censorships or takedowns. these vary 50/50 in between copyright issues and political censorship.

on top of this, there are other kinds of repression of the media even outside internet. recently, almost all of the remaining journalists who oppose the current government were rounded up in a 'terror trial' that's ongoing (and neverending) in the country. it invoked reaction of eu, and u.s. that also hit internet too - a prominent and rather significant opposition media outlet's journalists were broadcasting primarily from their website. they had been rather too effective. and they are now under custody under charges which eu and u.s. (finally) thinks to be rather dubious and unfounded.

so basically - there is huge censorship in turkey. in order to appease eu, the government is trying to make it appear as if there is no censorship and whatever is happening, is happening legitimately and through courts, but somehow, ALL these court issues happen to hit opposing journalists or political opponents. and moreover, they hit when they become rather too vocal too - if you keep your voice down, you are tolerated for some time. if you are talking and people are hearing, suddenly you get taken in for a 'terror investigation'.

such is the state of turkey. it has no place in european union at this state. its really a total facade of a democracy.

Obviously this story's fake. (0, Flamebait)

Zorque (894011) | more than 3 years ago | (#35401310)

I mean, come on. Who would pirate soccer.

everyone is suffering (1)

jmcvetta (153563) | more than 3 years ago | (#35402256)

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.

Turkish President doesn't walk the walk (1)

Smerta (1855348) | more than 3 years ago | (#35402982)

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] ?

Re:Turkish President doesn't walk the walk (1)

niw3 (1029008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35404542)

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.

ip rights (1)

dean.collins (862044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35403080)

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/basketball/soccer etc. When people use blogger/justin.tv etc as a tool to bypass these PPV's you have to understand that is moeny being taken out of their pocket. You might say well the NFL makes 9b a year thats plenty, maybe but my neighbour works for a stadium and if you dont pay...he doesnt get paid if you know what i mean. So whilst it's easy to poke fun of the courts going after blogger (though not sure why they didnt go after justin.tv etc is beyond me) the point is what should they be doing to recoup their money? Any Thoughts?

Re:ip rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35404006)

Tomorrow's news: 14 sport chat websites banned by a court because some of the users exchanged justin.tv links. Rumours claim that the infringing users were /. users getting revenge for the founder's shameless plug of his website in a comment...

Digiturk's arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35403358)

Digiturk's lawyers told that they tried to make Google close only the blogs with pirated content but Google didn't do this. And it's a case going on for over a year between Digiturk and Google. So Turkish courts ban IP's but since blogs on blogger.com use IP's from an IP pool many blogs are effected. I only wanted to give opposite arguments which I personally didn't find convincing.

I'm from Turkey (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35403814)

In an upper view, well actually it is not about laws, rights etc. In this country it is not first that Google's IPs were blocked. As you may remember Youtube was blocked for years, for the very first reason, about digiturk copyrights bla bla.

These are all about political view, scientific vision and mission of our dear government and the cabinet. They are really very far from science and technology.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?